Support NeoGAF

[AcademicSaucer]

The US-led coalition’s use of white phosphorus munitions on the outskirts of al-Raqqa, Syria is unlawful and may amount to a war crime, Amnesty International can confirm after verifying five videos of the incident.

The videos, published online on 8 and 9 June, showed the coalition’s artillery strike using the munitions over the civilian neighborhoods of Jezra and el-Sebahiya. International humanitarian law prohibits the use of white phosphorus near civilians.

“The use of white phosphorus munitions by the US-led coalition gravely endangers the lives of thousands of civilians trapped in and around al-Raqqa city, and may amount to a war crime under these circumstances. It can cause horrific injuries by burning through flesh and bone and can pose a threat even weeks after being deployed by reigniting and burning at extremely high temperatures,” said Samah Hadid, Middle East Director of Campaigns at Amnesty International.

Amnesty International verified and cross-checked five videos that surfaced on 8 and 9 June 2017. The videos clearly show different angles of a white phosphorus air-burst and the same areas being targeted by burning elements of white phosphorus landing upon low-level buildings. Repeated use of white phosphorous in circumstances where burning elements are likely to come into contact with civilians violates international humanitarian law.

Source: https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-re...on-use-white-phosphorus-may-amount-war-crime/

 

[OnPoint]

The people behind this should be tried.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

As it should be seen as if it was used around civilians. We'd expect the same if a foreign power used them around our civilians.

 

[Escape Goat]

Someone invent cold fusion now please.

 

[darscot]

Stay classy

 

[AcademicSaucer]

The people behind this should be tried.

They wont

 

[Beardz]

"But why they hate us so much?"

 

[daxy]

So the US (led?) forces claim to have used it as a smokescreen, but aren't there other ways of creating a smokescreen that don't involve potentially burning people to death? I just don't see the logic here.

 

[Trace]

Every single person involved in that should be in jail.

 

[reckless]

That's really fucked up, but people won't be held accountable.

 

[SliceSabre]

Nobody will be punished for this because war crimes only apply to small countries or countries we don't like.

Big ones like the US, Russia etc can tell everyone else to piss off whenever they commit war crimes or that it is the cost of doing war.

 

[Kthulhu]

"it was just for illumination"

-some jackass

 

[Angel_DvA]

We didn't put most of the Nazies on trial, won't be the case here too but it's really disgusting.

 

[Eylos]

Should US embargo himself for human rights?

 

[MutFox]

We had a thread about it the other day...
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1391418&page=1
It's a terrorist act.

 

[Nivash]

So the US (led?) forces claim to have used it as a smokescreen, but aren't there other ways of creating a smokescreen that don't involve potentially burning people to death? I just don't see the logic here.

There are, but that obviously depends on what they had available.

BTW, the title is misleading. "US-led coalition" forces isn't the same thing as "US" forces. Maybe I'm misremembering things, but wasn't it Iraqi forces that said they'd fired the WP to screen the civilians?

EDIT: No wait, that was obviously in Mosul, not Al-Raqqa.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/14/iraq/syria-danger-us-white-phosphorus

The Al-Raqqa strikes appear to be unattributed for now.

 

[RinsFury]

Those responsible should be charged with war crimes.

As should all of those that engaged in its use since the beginning of the Iraq/Afghan wars.

But nothing will happen. Nothing ever does.

 

[Frankenstrat]

Glad to see they're putting my tax dollars to good use.

 

[bsp]

WP is the best smokescreen device out there so the claim of it's usage as being non-offensive is likely to be the right one.

Apart from that use, WP is only prohibited near civilians if the primary reason for deploying it is as an incendiary round. If it was used as claimed, as a smokescreen, then it is not illegal under any council. These were not incendiary WP munitions being dropped onto people as bombs.

 

[Username1198]

War crimes? Pshhhh

Focus on the real problems, like minorities smoking weed ! Lock us up!!

 

[Got]

WP is the best smokescreen device out there so the claim of it's usage as being non-offensive is likely to be the right one.

Apart from that use, WP is only prohibited near civilians if the primary reason for deploying it is as an incendiary round. If it was used as claimed, as a smokescreen, then it is not illegal under any council. These were not incendiary WP munitions being dropped onto people as bombs.

you're right. they did give themselves great cover to commit war crimes.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

Those responsible should be charged with war crimes.

As should all of those that engaged in its use since the beginning of the Iraq/Afghan wars.

But nothing will happen. Nothing ever does.

Atleast thats something both parties can agree with.

 

[bsp]

you're right. they did give themselves great cover to commit war crimes.

War crimes are a legal definition and not an emotional one. WP is allowed to be used in the presence of civilians if the reason is a smokescreen and not as an offensive incendiary round. Smokescreen shells use small strips of WP-soaked material that airburst to get maximum smoke spread. Incendiary WP weapons are WP + HE rounds that also airburst but will ignite most of the air it detonates into. They are different configurations. Smoke rounds contain much less WP than ones meant to maim or kill.