• pheet@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    do you guys downvote all true things you find inconvenient?

    I think people are downvoting the fact that you are insisting the “…incendiary weapons such as the above…”, when the weapon is not in fact an incendiary, also according to UN Convention

    • galloog1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What weapon was it? US made weapons, even with shaped charges, are incendiary. It’s in the field manual and training. I don’t know what to say beyond this. There hasn’t been a court case around it to my knowledge so there is no precedent set.

          • pheet@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s irrelevant since, as in the link:

            Protocol III states though that incendiary weapons do not include: … Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armor-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.

            Having an incendiary mechanism doesn’t mean it is an incendiary weapon in the sense of your quote of Section 6.2 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin.

            • galloog1@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, which is why the target of the usage of the weapon matters. Was the target in the video an armoured vehicle, aircraft and installations or facility?