Thats an urban myth.
You can view the relevant Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III) here
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/515?OpenDocument
"
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"
Question is, were their civilians in the area's attacked ?
If not then there is no case to answer, if so then its bad PR time.
"Thats an urban myth.
You can view the relevant Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III) here
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/515?OpenDocument "
I have read the documents. However, there is a difference between practice and theory. The questions become:
1) Was the use of WP against civilians intentional?
2) If this use was intentional, did such use violate treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory?
3) If there was a treaty violation, was it a war crime? (The two concepts are not synonymous.)
The burden of proof is on the accusing party, which would be the other belligerent in the war--al-Queda. Finally:
4) In which venue would this alleged war crime be tried? The United States does not hold to the theory that third nation-states may investigate and punish crimes between combat between the U.S. and another nation.
I would move that any legal investigation would be quashed. There is no state of war going on; rather, this is suppression of a criminal band whose powers are such that they cannot be handled by local, Iraqi, authorities. There is no nation-state to which these jihadis adhere to. There is no Iraqi government in exile for whom they fight. Thus, it would not be a war.
Even if a state of war is accepted on a de facto basis, one could argue that the use of WP as an alternative to infantry attacks saved lives in close assault. Furthermore, the use of WP was aimed at military objectives, not civilian objectives. There was no attempt to frighten the citizens of Fallujah into surrender; there was no attempt to destroy the city as a whole; there was an attempt to burn out fighters from fixed strongpoints, near which civilians lived. It is hard on the civilians, but legal under the law of war.
The intent of the law was to protect civilians against wanton and indiscriminate attack. The United States assault against Fallujah was neithter wanton--Fallujah harbored persons who attacked American Marines and soldiers--nor indiscriminate, in that it had specific objectives and goals. Thus, Question (3) can also be answered in the negative.
Because the first three questions could be answered in the negative, this should make question (4) moot. I will answer it anyway. Because this is not an war that involves neighboring nations as combatants, and because the parties involved were the U.S., Iraq, and the insurgents, no other party has the legal authority to investigate this incident or to establish and apportion blame among the belligerents.