Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: LeoWindhorse

Why not? They can blame it on the IDF.


3 posted on 03/15/2018 1:32:06 AM PDT by Eleutheria5 (“If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Eleutheria5

International law does not specifically prohibit the use of napalm or other incendiaries against military targets,[26] but use against civilian populations was banned by the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) in 1980.[28] Protocol III of the CCW restricts the use of all incendiary weapons, but a number of countries have not acceded to all of the protocols of the CCW. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), countries are considered a party to the convention, which entered into force as international law in December 1983, as long as they ratify at least two of the five protocols. Approximately 25 years after the General Assembly adopted it, the United States signed it on January 21, 2009, President Barack Obama’s first full day in office.[29][30] Its ratification, however, is subject to a reservation that says that the treaty can be ignored if it would save civilian lives.[30]


7 posted on 03/15/2018 1:58:12 AM PDT by LeoWindhorse (America First !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Eleutheria5

Three words. Fire for effect.


14 posted on 03/15/2018 2:53:03 AM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson