The videos attached to the claim show it being used for smokescreens, which Reuters comments is legal.
@idkwhatimdoing it's only legal for smokescreens if you have taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that by doing so, you're not also inflicting it on civillians.
The injuries it produces are horrific.
We literally just watched them shell an entire city of civilians who complied with an order to leave all their earthly possessions and gather in the city center.
They targeted the city center.
Do you have a relatively reputable source for that? I saw this but only from a turkish news agency who has a lot of missinfo issues
Fair point.
Murdock probably owns all of it and this is a good reminder that noone knows what the fuck happened except the people who were there.
Yes, which the article does not say they've failed to do. In fact, the article says that the videos submitted as evidence seem to support its legal use not in Gaza, but near Lebanon, and that Human Rights Watch submitted no videos at all showing white phosphorus in Gaza.
But not in densely populated areas, because it can cause severe burns.
White phosphorus, which can be used as a smokescreen or a weapon, has the potential to cause civilian harm due to the severe burns it causes and its lingering long-term effects on survivors. Its use in densely populated areas of Gaza violates the requirement under international humanitarian law that parties to the conflict take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life.
The videos attached to the claim show it being used for smokescreens, which Reuters comments is legal.
@idkwhatimdoing it's only legal for smokescreens if you have taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that by doing so, you're not also inflicting it on civillians.
The injuries it produces are horrific.
We literally just watched them shell an entire city of civilians who complied with an order to leave all their earthly possessions and gather in the city center.
They targeted the city center.
Do you have a relatively reputable source for that? I saw this but only from a turkish news agency who has a lot of missinfo issues
Fair point.
Murdock probably owns all of it and this is a good reminder that noone knows what the fuck happened except the people who were there.
Yes, which the article does not say they've failed to do. In fact, the article says that the videos submitted as evidence seem to support its legal use not in Gaza, but near Lebanon, and that Human Rights Watch submitted no videos at all showing white phosphorus in Gaza.
But not in densely populated areas, because it can cause severe burns.