Why I voted against military intervention "white phosphorus" How Can That NOT Be A Chemical Weapon?"

[kpete]

Syria debate: why I voted against military intervention
A military strike could escalate into a wider conflict with many hundreds of thousands more victims and no exit strategy

Sarah Wollaston

"The "red line" was crossed in 1985, when Saddam Hussein systematically deployed these horrors against Iranian forces but it suited western governments to look the other way. It is in part the seething resentment at western double standards that prevents us claiming the moral high ground in this debate. What about the use of weaponised white phosphorus, which burns on contact with air and keeps burning right down to bone?

How can that not be a chemical weapon? Perhaps only because it has been deployed by US forces. We urge extremists to abandon conflict for the ballot box, yet the world's policeman has failed to call a coup a coup in Egypt or demand the release of Mohamed Morsi, their democratically elected leader."

more
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/30/syria-debate-voted-against-military-intervention

Meet Sarah

http://www.drsarah.org.uk/about/meet-sarah

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. because it was aimed at troops...

not at civilians....as this is...

[VanillaRhapsody]

3. anti-personell not anti-civilian...

On November 15, 2005, U.S. Department of Defense spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable confirmed to the BBC that white phosphorus had been used as an incendiary antipersonnel weapon in Fallujah. Venable stated "When you have enemy forces that are in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on and you wish to get them out of those positions, one technique is to fire a white phosphorus round into the position because the combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives."[9][10]

[sabrina 1]

15. Fallujah, the photos were not of troops. They were of burned babies, women,

old people.

Recent reports on the deformend babies still being born are heart-breaking.

Let this Government start cleaning up their own act before they dare to claim that 'this won't be tolerated' by anyone else.

Obama chose not to go after the War Criminals right here in this country. We don't have to use bombs to 'teach them a lesson, we just have to arrest them and charge them and there is PLENTY of evidence, starting with Fallujah.

The problem with what you just posted is that the Military DENIED they used WH in Fallujah initially. Until they couldn't. Then they tried to convince the world of what you just posted.

Yesterday in the British Parliament, a debate that is well worth watching, many of the members brought up the US' use of White Phosphorous in Fallujah. And asked, as the world is asking, how on earth can this country claim that 'this won't be tolerated' when they have give a free pass to those right here in the US who used a banned weapon in Iraq and generations are being born victims of that crime.

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. but they were not the intended target....big difference..

[chimpymustgo]

36. But when you KNOW civilians will be hit - not much difference. It's just WRONG.

[malaise]

39. Are you freaking serious? n/t

[David__77]

51. What do you think the target in Syria was?

And how do you know about that, or about the intended target in Iraq? You think the US does not target civilians?

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. 1400+ dead (including at least 400 children) in multiple locations see map below

and NO I do not think the U.S. targets civilians...

Yes civilians die.....but they are not the target.

[David__77]

58. 1,400 people was the target?

Are you sure? Do you know many many were combatants?

[VanillaRhapsody]

59. look at the map...

what do you think?

[TheMadMonk]

53. I was aiming for the bear. Not my fault you put your head in the way.

Does that by any chance demonstrate the fallacy of your logic?

[VanillaRhapsody]

54. That's freaking sick...

You seriously think President Obama thinks like that? Is that what you are implying?

ODS...

[TheMadMonk]

60. For starters FALUJA took place under BUSH not OBAMA.

NOW:
The commanders on the ground and their generals ABSOLUTELY KNEW, and almost certainly Rummy and Co. knew that there would be significant civilian casualties in taking the city, but chose to make no appreciable effort to minimise those casualties.

Furthermore, their definition of combatant was extremely loose. Essentially, any male who was not a beardless boy, or drooling dotard.

Piling on the additionals, given that cultural sensitivity was EXPLICITLY spoken of in making the case for war, it is impossible to believe that there was not at least some understanding that the men of Faluja were not hiding behind their women and children, they kept their women and children with themselves, because it was culturally and religiously impossible for them to put their women in the hands of the infidel, equally it would be just as impossible for many of the women and children to remove themselves from the only protection they knew.

It was not that no one realised how many women and children would remain behind, it was that no one (from Bush all the way down through the chain of command) cared enough not to shoot through them to achieve their goals.


That my actions occur independently of your actions, despite absolute foreknowledge that your actions will catastrophically modify the outcome of my actions is not a valid argument as I was pointing out.

Methinks it's sicker to dismiss "....big difference.." (the dot dot dot dot, not the difference) those casualties, than to calculatedly seek those casualties as a means towards their ends.

[pinboy3niner]

62. And use of white phosphorous in Falluja violated an international convention

The U.S. is not a signatory to that particular convention, but it violates international norms prohibiting use of incendiary weapons against civilians or in civilian areas.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3566285

[neverforget]

56. Oops. Sorry you were killed. You weren't the intended target.

[VanillaRhapsody]

61. Your theory has a couple flaws..

First until you find a way to end all wars....you will never eliminate all civilian casualties..so unless you know a way to do that...your dot dot dot dash dash dash analogy or what ever that was....is complete nonsense


.the point is do you even try to avoid it or not? We have a tendency not to raise entire countries to the ground though we have the technology to do it...in an attempt to limit you know the civilian casualties...there are for the most part legitimate military targets though accidents do happen....

Therefore, if you are not going to realistically end all wars....you have to have some boundaries and it seems to me outright targeting civilians killing thousands including more than 400 children with that number climbing every day....and not just killing them....killing them with torturous methods so they die in utter agony losing all control of bodily functions until they succumb...you are saying that having hundreds of children dying like that is just like any other kind of death is beyond my ability to understand human beings..

[neverforget]

63. It's so easy to talk nonsense like you when you have no skin in the game.

100,000 people have been killed in Syria so far. How are the 1500 that were killed with gas more important than the previous 100,000?

Just because some 2-bit dictator (possibly the rebels) used gas to kill civilians we get all outraged yet the killing of civilians by conventional means (bombs, bullets) is somehow not as outrageous as chemical weapons. Killing is outrageous regardless of the means.

[VanillaRhapsody]

64. Its not about who is more important....

Do you understand that not responding gives tacit agreement to the use of chemical weapons....You are saying that you will look the other way while babies are gassed. You know at least 400 babies died that night....died a slow agonizing horrifying death.

What if we ad methods to literally nuetralize stock pikes of chemical weapons....thousands of tons of them are under the control of Assad and his reign is starting to look precariously short unless we allow him to gas all his enemies....and then the chemicals take the risk of falling into even more worrisome hands.

How many lives could be saved if that stockpile could be depleted drastically?

They have been working on neutralizing methods for over 10 years...perhaps its at a point the theory needs to be tested real time?

Would not the swift elimination of a great deal of those chemicals be a worthwile effort?

[neverforget]

66. We're not going to destroy the chemical weapons stockpiles. That is a bad idea as

bombs tend to disperse chemicals. In order to completely destroy them, they would have to taken with forces on the ground which is not going to happen. All our bombing campaign will do is slightly degrade the means of delivery. That's it. There is no magical ability of the US military to neutralize these weapons without massive amounts of troops on the ground. See the following link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world/middleeast/obama-syria-strike.html?_r=1&


"Do you understand that not responding gives tacit agreement to the use of chemical weapons....You are saying that you will look the other way while babies are gassed. You know at least 400 babies died that night....died a slow agonizing horrifying death."

And the 100,000 people before hand didn't die "a slow agonizing horrifying death?" Talk about selective outrage! Should we get ourselves involved in every conflict in the world? People die "a slow agonizing horrifying death" in every war! Why is this so different than any other war? Are we going to be the world's policeman? and for how long?

I'm outraged about the war in Syria but there is nothing the US can do to fix it. The people of Syria are going to have to figure that out for themselves. Dropping bombs on Syria isn't going to do jack shit to stop the conflict but it could widen it. Fuck that.

[sabrina 1]

70. How sad this is. I remember when Fallujah happened and the outrage from the

Left. Now to see anyone on the Left even try to 'excuse', 'defend' and worse, dismiss it, especially since the Military admitted it at the time, AFTER first denying it, is incredibly sad.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE for what happened to those unfortunate and innocent people in Fallujah and the cries for justice for them are around the world are growing louder after the recent reports of the horrific aftermath, the babies still being born with deformities because of what you say 'wasn't intended'. Really? Tell it to the mothers and the fathers. I'm sure they will agree it's all okay because 'they were not the targets'.

WE DIDN'T BELONG in Iraq. That whole war was a crime.

[Marrah_G]

25. Exactly

And it is illegal for ANY country to use it on people.

What we did in Fallujah was unforgivable.

[kpete]

4. one word:

Fallujah

The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it

Now we know napalm and phosphorus bombs have been dropped on Iraqis, why have the hawks failed to speak out.

to jog our memory:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111600374.html

[VanillaRhapsody]

5. Yes but we weren't targetting civilians specifically and Assad DID

thats the difference...see my response above..

[malaise]

41. Go tell that to the dead and deformed in Iraq

Last edited Fri Aug 30, 2013, 07:17 PM - Edit history (1)

The US is in no position to discuss chemical weapons with anyone.
Remember Agent Orange!
Great discussion on Ed Shultz

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. Yes I do remember....so you just want to stand by then and let Assad any anyone else just gas babies

that's what you are saying.....directly attacking civilians with such weapons...its okay to just turn a blind eye.

[TheMadMonk]

55. There is a certain sick "value" in deliberately targetting civilians.

Just what does it say of America that, it cares not how many complete innocents it mistakes for "legitimate targets", or just stand between it and its goals?

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Again, it is not banned by the CWC. n/t

[sabrina 1]

23. WP is banned as a weapon. And here is a statement on its use in Fallujah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus#Use_in_Iraq_.282004.29

On November 15, 2005, the U.S. Department of Defense confirmed to the BBC that white phosphorus had been used as an incendiary antipersonnel weapon in Fallujah, stating "When you have enemy forces that are in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on and you wish to get them out of those positions, one technique is to fire a white phosphorus round into the position because the combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives."[15][16]

That is an admission of guilt. The bodies confirm that claim.

We never even held an inquiry, never sent anyone to look at all the bodies, not even of the children whose dead burned bodies, were confirmed in photos that the whole world saw, except it appears, the US Government.

Babies are still being being born with terrible deformities in Fallujah which was reported on recently as a matter of fact, as the victims ask for help, from someone.

[Cali_Democrat]

31. WP is not banned as a chemical weapon. n/t

[chimpymustgo]

42. Don't forget to K & R!!

[MNBrewer]

29. The use of chemical weapons is what violates international conventions

NOT against whom they are used.

[pinboy3niner]

44. International conventions DO make distinctions for civilians wrt incendiary weapons like WP

From the Protocol to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Protocol III (pertaining to use of incendiary weapons, including white phosphorous):

Article 2

Protection of civilians and civilian objects

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.


http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/ccwc_p3/text

[Cali_Democrat]

2. It is not banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention. n/t

[ForgoTheConsequence]

9. Syria isn't part of the chemical weapons convention.

What's your point?

[Cali_Democrat]

10. So the US using it does not violate the CWC of which the US is a signatory. n/t

[ForgoTheConsequence]

12. Again, your point?

So the US is free to use chemical weapons because they weren't included in a treaty, but Syria is bound by a treaty they never signed?



Makes sense........



If you're looking for any excuse to bomb the shit out of someone.

[Cali_Democrat]

28. I never said Syria was abound by that treaty

The OP mentioned white phosphorous and I was simply noting that it isn't banned under CWC. That's all.

Also, I'm opposed to any US strike on Syria.

You're reading too much into my post.

[bfbastardo]

71. And along came the grammar grump...

It's 'bound' not 'abound'.
'Abound' = Something that exists in large numbers.
But kudos/points/cuddles for using it to try to appear cleverer.

Let's use 'abound' in a sentence:
"The internet is abound with shit-heads berating others over their embarrassingly poor English."

Yours,
BFB
PS: On a serious note - you may ask "Why does it matter?"
Because poor grammar (and spelling) instantly and irrevocably deflates the power of our arguments.
This is why most of the English speaking world regards Americans as half-wits. Well, that and the whole 'guns' thing, and the lack of a modern health system, and the criminal bullshit of only having two weeks of holiday (sorry, 'vacation') per year. If I only had two weeks of holiday per year, I'd probably shoot someone too.

[Xipe Totec]

72. And along came the manners grump...

Fundamental Techniques in Handling People

Don't criticize, condemn, or complain.
Give honest and sincere appreciation.
Arouse in the other person an eager want.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

[BainsBane]

73. This half-wit American can tell the difference between a typo and a grammatical error

No one actually says "abound" by a treaty.

I'm tempted to make a remark about bad teeth, but I will restrain myself from sinking to your level.

[gopiscrap]

74. Welcome to DU

[sabrina 1]

26. It IS banned as an inceniary weapon. And the Pentagon, first denied using it at all,

the confirmed they used it as a weapon, then denied that and claimed to have only used for illumination or as a smokescreen, the ONLY way it is permitted AFTER it was clear that they had used it.

But no investigation took place. We say 'this can't be tolertated' but it was, by the US. So as members of Parliament said yesterday, what right does the US have to interfere in this matter considering their own history of the use of Chemicals, in Iraq, both wars, DU and WP and in Vietnam. The WORLD remembers these things even if the US has developed amnesia over them.

Two big reasons Cameron lost the vote. One, he was unable to provide proof that the Syrian Govt were responsible, despite given opportunity after opportunity to do so, he had to admit it was just a 'judgement call'.

And the second, as brought up by several members, the US' own use of chemical weapons which, in their opinions, destroys their moral authority on this issue completely

[Cali_Democrat]

32. WP is not banned as a chemical weapon. n/t

[sabrina 1]

68. WP is a banned weapon and no matter how many times you say it is not will not

change the facts.

[VanillaRhapsody]

7. FYI

On November 30, 2005, General Peter Pace stated that white phosphorus munitions were a "legitimate tool of the military" used to illuminate targets and create smokescreens, saying "It is not a chemical weapon. It is an incendiary. And it is well within the law of war to use those weapons as they're being used, for marking and for screening".[1]

[ForgoTheConsequence]

8. Sure, it can be.

And originally the US lied and said that's all it was being used for....


but they lied.

[jakeXT]

11. But misuse is not allowed, even in their own manuals

(4) Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-3/c5/5sect3.htm

[VanillaRhapsody]

13. it wasn't misused...

it was used at the siege of Fallujiah

On November 30, 2005, General Peter Pace stated that white phosphorus munitions were a "legitimate tool of the military" used to illuminate targets and create smokescreens, saying "It is not a chemical weapon. It is an incendiary. And it is well within the law of war to use those weapons as they're being used, for marking and for screening".[1]

[jakeXT]

14. They are even so stupid to put it in official army magazines

Did US troops use chemical weapons in Falluja? The answer is yes. The proof is not to be found in the documentary broadcast on Italian TV last week, which has generated gigabytes of hype on the internet. It’s a turkey, whose evidence that white phosphorus was fired at Iraqi troops is flimsy and circumstantial(1). But the bloggers debating it found the smoking gun.

The first account they unearthed comes from 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. On page 26 is the following text. “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 explosives]. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.”(2)

The second comes from a report in California’s North County Times, by a staff reporter embedded with the Marines during the siege of Falluja in April 2004. “”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 a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.”(3)

White phosporus is not listed in the shedules 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”(4). 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”(5).

http://www.monbiot.com/2005/11/15/war-without-rules/

[VanillaRhapsody]

17. Its not illegal....

[jakeXT]

18. when the president does it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

19. No...its just not...see posts above..

[sabrina 1]

27. White Phosphorous IS banned as a weapon. Please stop spreading this false information.

It is allowed in a very limited way, but in no way is it allowed anywhere near civilians or even the enemy.

And surely you are not defending what has become a world wide horror to this day, brought up in the UK Parliament yesterday eg as an example of why the US cannot be trusted on issues like this?

Fallujah is going to be remembered as one of the worst war crimes in recent times committed by Bush and his War Criminal buddies. The bodies were seen all over the world, despite efforts to prevent it. Babies are still being born with horrible deformities as a result of that crime.

And the US chose not to even conduct an investigation into the slaughter that took place in that now infamous attack on Fallujah.

I cannot conceive of anyone trying to defend that awful, cruel, war crime. And it has cost the US their moral authority that we never prosecuted the criminals.

[SidDithers]

20. Words have meaning...

chemical weapons are chemical weapons. Incendiary weapons are incendiary weapons.



Sid

[DisgustipatedinCA]

24. Yes, words have meaning.

Here are some words, with their attendant meanings helpfully provided:

US intelligence classified white phosphorus as 'chemical weapon'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-intelligence-classified-white-phosphorus-as-chemical-weapon-516523.html

[sabrina 1]

30. Thank you. It's at the point now where I feel sick when I come here sometimes seeing

these attempts to defend one of the worst war crimes in Fallujah committed by the Bush War Criminals. The victims are still there, they are still asking for an investigation as their children are still being born deformed.

It is grotesque to see anyone even try to defend this and for what? Why? It has been established that Fallujah was a massive war crime, all over the world.

It was brought up in the British Parliament yesterday and contributed to the loss of the vote for intervention in Syria.

Thank you for countering some of the false information being spread around DU these days.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

35. It could be someone's full-time job countering some of the false information spread here.

I only have time here and there, but I do what I can.

Have a great weekend, Sabrina.

[HereSince1628]

21. Well, while it is undoubtedly an incidiary it also makes a lot of thick white smoke

when it burns.

So, the people who use these things claim their use is as smoke screens and apologize for all the ghastly burns, as if that wasn't the desired result.

[Gravitycollapse]

22. White phosphorous is not a chemical weapon any more than gun powder...

It's objective use is as an incendiary device to produce illumination, smoke or fire.

One could argue that is used in psychological warfare because the prospect of being burn horrifically by it is so disturbing.

But it is not a chemical weapon.

[MNBrewer]

33. Then what is a "chemical" weapon, then?

[Rex]

38. I guess WP is not a chemical.

I guess Agent Orange was just orange juice.

[Gravitycollapse]

46. Agent Orange is not a chemical weapon. It is an herbicide.

With some particularly horrific effects when humans are inadvertently exposed.

[Gravitycollapse]

47. It is a weapon using chemical reaction specifically against human targets to cause injury or death.

Nerve gas is a chemical weapon, for instance.

[sabrina 1]

34. It is BANNED as an 'incendiary weapon'.

Plenty of links have been provided in this thread. And why is anyone on this forum trying to defend that horrific war crime by the Bush War Criminals in Fallujah?

The British Parliamentary members yesterday don't agree with you. They brought up that war crime as a reason why the US has no right to talk about this issue.

Maybe if we had prosecuted the criminals we would have regained some moral authority, but this administration, now stating 'we will not tolerate this' told us in Jan 2009 that they would not be prosecuting war criminals, not because there were no crimes, but 'because it is our judgement that it is better for the country move forward'.

The world remembers Fallujah, the British Parliament reminded their PM yesterday of Fallujah and he lost the vote as he should have.

[Gravitycollapse]

45. False, it is illegal to use against civilians. Otherwise, it is legal to use as a weapon of war.

[sabrina 1]

69. That is what I said. It is banned as a weapon of war. And it was used in Fallujah

against civilians. It was admitted by the US that it was used. Denied, admitted, denied again.

As pointed out in the British Parliament this week.

Some in the US may forget these crimes, or now try to excuse them, but it doesn't matter, the world, and certainly Iraq will never forget considering the recent reports FROM Iraq of the babies being born there who are so terribly deformed as a result of White Phosphorous.

The Iraqis are asking the International Community to conduct an investigation of that crime as a result of the alarming number of horribly tragic births since White Phosphorous was used in that city.

Shouldn't we be leading the way on this IF we are so concerned about these war crimes?

[Link Speed]

40. I'd pick Sarin over WP any day.

I saw Laotians who were totally fucked up by that shit. Cauterized wounds that went completely through them.

And the Good Ol' USofA has littered parts of the ME with DU, and that shit doesn't go away.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

48. The US government seems to disagree with you about that.

Ironically, I often don't believe the claims of the US government. But when they refer to white phosphorous as a chemical weapon, I don't have much problem believing it.

[Gravitycollapse]

49. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons disagrees with the United States...

As it does not consider white phosphorous a chemical weapon.

http://www.opcw.org/

White phosphorous is also mentioned in several conventions on conventional weapon use.

[Link Speed]

37. I've seen that shit up-close and personal

If I had a choice, I would ten times rather get hit by Sarin that WP. I saw folks in Laos who were seared through and through.

Depleted Uranium is not a chemical, either, but it will fuck up multiple generations.

[devils chaplain]

50. White phosphorous isn't a chemical weapon... and we didn't torture, just "enhanced interrogations"

It's only a war crime if you lose the word game.

[TheMadMonk]

52. Because we medically distinguish between chemical, and thermal burns.

The difference basically lies in whether the offending substance does its damage by reacting (chemically) with the flesh or the atmosphere.

[Niceguy1]

65. why bring facts?

Emotions are ruling here.

Don't ruing the anit USA party here lol

[pinboy3niner]

67. WP is an incendiary weapon not yet prohibited in warfare, except against civilians and trees

From the Protocol to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Protocol III (pertaining to use of incendiary weapons, including white phosphorous):

Article 2

Protection of civilians and civilian objects

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.


http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/ccwc_p3/text