US admits using white phosphorous as incendiary in Fallujah

[Tribesman]

it is rather clear that an incendiary weapon like WP is not covered by this convention as it is not dependent on its toxic properties (which are a secondary, albeit very nasty effect).

Secondary effect , thats how the Germans justified their early gas attacks in WWI wasn't it , they were not gas shells they were shells that contained gas , the primary "intent" was to cause an explosion the gassing was just a "secondary effect" . That way they were not breaking any conventions or treaties .

[Ser Clegane]

it is rather clear that an incendiary weapon like WP is not covered by this convention as it is not dependent on its toxic properties (which are a secondary, albeit very nasty effect).

Secondary effect , thats how the Germans justified their early gas attacks in WWI wasn't it , they were not gas shells they were shells that contained gas , the primary "intent" was to cause an explosion the gassing was just a "secondary effect" . That way they were not breaking any conventions or treaties .

OK - how about some facts?

Do you have any numbers from this WP attack or any other WP attack that would show that poisoning is indeed the primary effect of this weapon?

If you have read my comments in the other thread on this issue you will hopefully understand my view on this.

While it is IMO clear that the use of WP is not covered by the chemical weapons convention under the given definitions, I see that one could argue that this definition should include weapons like WP as these weapons have effects that are indeed similar to the chemical weapons that are defined in the relevant convention.

That they are not covered is probably one of the reasons that there are some protocols that cover the usage of weapons that fall under the current definition of conventional weapons, such as incendiary weapons or anti-person mines.
As things stand, the US decided not to sign these protocols, and one can certainly draw conclusions regarding this decision made by US administrations.

Personally, I consider the use of weapons like WP in urban areas that are still inhabited by civilians as abhorrent and against the spirit of conventions such as that against the use of chemical weapons.
However, I think discussing whether it is illegal or not distracts from the IMHO more important discussion whether it is acceptable or not, as the former can easily be refuted and thus the discussion does not lesd anywhere.