Original sentence: "No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus.According to the United States, it is not the toxic properties but the heat from WP which causes the damage.However, Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, questioned by Sigfrido Ranucci author of the RAI November 2005 Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre documentary, consider that if used offensively, it would enter the category of chemical weapon as its chemical properties are put to use (only smoke-screening and illumination purposes would then be allowed):.If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons.If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement
Edited sentence: However, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, questioned by Sigfrido Ranucci author of the RAI November 2005 documentary, consider that if used offensively, it would enter the category of chemical weapon as its chemical properties are put to use (only smoke-screening and illumination purposes would then be allowed).Strictly speaking, since white phosphorus's primary effects are not actually due to its toxicity, but its spontaneous ignition in the presence of oxygen, many believe it has more in common with incendiary weapons instead