Thread: Vets, what is your opinion on the Syrian pullout?

Originally Posted by Casper

Is that why he has increased the number of troops in the ME?

In KSA you mean. To protect oil production and to combat future Iran-backed attacks.

Originally Posted by Rogue Valley

Turkey is suspected of using white phosphorus against Kurdish civilians in Syria

The Organization for the Prohibition Against Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is on the way to northern Syria. Just like the Russians, Erdogan is employing white phosphorus on civilian populations.

Wow, major fail.

White Phosphorous is not a "Chemical Weapon". Heck, it's use is not even a war crime unless purposefully directed at purely unarmed civilians where there are no enemy combatants.

It is not a "Chemical Weapon". It is not prohibited by a single treaty. It is only restricted as is any other weapon.

You can not fire a mortar round into a school. You can fire a mortar round into a school that is being occupied by enemy combatants. This is Geneva Convention 101 stuff here. By the same measure, you can not fire White Phosphorous into a school. But you can fire it into a school that is being used by enemy combatants.

So your entire claim is absolutely meaningless.

Originally Posted by Oozlefinch

"Business Insider"?

Oh please, nobody takes them seriously. They are a strongly left-leaning propaganda rag, which hides itself as a "Business Source".

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.
Business Insider - Media Bias/Fact Check

he thing is that they are in fact often factual, but the way they word their headlines and articles is misleading.

They all do that, so whatta ya going do?

Notice, nowhere does this say what chemicals were used, or anything like that. This is outright garbage, nothing but speculation and misdirection, with no real actual facts. It is not like they said "Phosgene is suspected", or "a nerve agent is suspected". It is nonsense speculation intended to influence with zero facts.

And as an FYI, many are claiming that Turkey has been using White Phosphorous. Yes, it is a chemical, but no it is not a "chemical weapon". And while Willie Pete is indeed a chemical, it's use is not banned. Although many countries (like the US) choose to not use it against civilians and troops in the open (but use against say vehicles that have troops in it is allowed under US ROE).

An article accusing use of chemical weapons. But not even naming what the weapon might be or anything else? Yea, right.

Here's a video from CBS Canada that mentions white phosphorus and when used against humans is considered a chemical weapon.



Notice at the end of the video it says Turkey gave a substantial donation to a chemical company.

In Turkey's defense, they say "the Kerds used chemical weapons on themselves."

Originally Posted by VanceMack

What is true is that it doesnt spread out like a chemical agent, doesnt stop at clothing lines, and is highly unlikely to have cause the damage in the image shown.

In that I fully agree.

However, that really does not matter for the issue of discussion, as it is not a "Chemical Weapon" in the first place.

And if their claim is somehow true, then they had better start screaming at the US and Russia also. And Syria, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Mozambique, Columbia, Congo, Angola, etc, etc, etc.

You know a position is an absolute fail when they try to pain a weapon that is 100% legal in all Laws of War requirements. And try to paint it as something it is not.

As I have been stating. Sadly lacking in any kinds of facts, only lashing out with their feelings and beliefs. Something I really could not care less about from either side.

Originally Posted by Moot

Here's a video from CBS Canada that mentions white phosphorus and when used against humans is considered a chemical weapon.

Fine. Then name me a single International Laws of War body that recognizes it as such.

Hague Protocols? Geneva Convention? UN? NATO? Warsaw Pact (when it existed)? Any?

Please, oh please tell me what legal reason you have to make this statement.

Technically, an aircraft dropping chemical retardant or even water is a "Chemical Weapon delivery system".

Give me one reason why your claim should be taken seriously, and as a violation of any international law.

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.

Originally Posted by Oozlefinch

Fine. Then name me a single International Laws of War body that recognizes it as such.

Hague Protocols? Geneva Convention? UN? NATO? Warsaw Pact (when it existed)? Any?

Please, oh please tell me what legal reason you have to make this statement.

Technically, an aircraft dropping chemical retardant or even water is a "Chemical Weapon delivery system".

Give me one reason why your claim should be taken seriously, and as a violation of any international law.

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

Originally Posted by Irredentist

That's not entirely true. White phosphorus, when used as an incendiary weapon, rather than to generate smoke, is prohibited by the Geneva convention of 1980 when used against civilians or in civilian areas, including schools. It can still be used against purely military targets, however.

That is what I just said!

Thank you for agreeing with me, and stating I am wrong at the same time.

You can not fire a mortar round into a school. You can fire a mortar round into a school that is being occupied by enemy combatants. This is Geneva Convention 101 stuff here. By the same measure, you can not fire White Phosphorous into a school. But you can fire it into a school that is being used by enemy combatants.

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:

[quote]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.