|
See, someone dropped into the thread saying 'Assad and Saddam are worse than Bibi' and instead of just going 'Well, duh' we get carried into arguing about minutiae.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 17:48 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 04:30 |
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:See, someone dropped into the thread saying 'Assad and Saddam are worse than Bibi' and instead of just going 'Well, duh' we get carried into arguing about minutiae. Being worse than Bibi unfortunately isn't that hard, even when looking only at the 20th Century.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 17:52 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Actually, using incendiary weapons against combatants isn't a war crime, despite what is popularly believed. As to the second point, something has to use its toxicity as a primary wounding mechanism to be considered a chemical weapon, since a lot of materials used in military weapons (lead, for example, as well as many other metals) are toxic to humans. In the case of White Phosphorus, its chemical toxicity is very much secondary to its burning action. I'd call redox reactions fairly toxic . I did just assume napalm and the like were kinda war-crimey but it is good to know otherwise. So I guess dusting people with alum and magnesium powder is a war crime because of the toxicity. So better drop them both and literally melt them before they get poisoned.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 18:29 |
|
Some levity, from Tal Schneider's latest blog post: Shelly Yechimovich, fomer Labor chair, takes a photo on Lapid's last day as Finance Minister. Summery of Schneider's points in English:
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 18:38 |
|
Israeli media is reporting another 'terror attack', A Palestinian Seriously amazed that an Israeli is physically able to shoot a Palestinian without aiming for the center of mass and/or emptying a whole magazine into him. emanresu tnuocca fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Dec 3, 2014 |
# ? Dec 3, 2014 18:51 |
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Israeli media is reporting another 'terror attack', A Palestinian This Israeli civilian is literally more professional than US police.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 18:58 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:This Israeli civilian is literally more professional than US police. I heard on the news that he a) was a paratrooper in the IDF and b) in recent years has been literally one of Bibi's personal bodyguards, so.. yeah.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 19:01 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Actually, using incendiary weapons against combatants isn't a war crime, despite what is popularly believed. As to the second point, something has to use its toxicity as a primary wounding mechanism to be considered a chemical weapon, since a lot of materials used in military weapons (lead, for example, as well as many other metals) are toxic to humans. In the case of White Phosphorus, its chemical toxicity is very much secondary to its burning action. Using incendiaries against civilian targets, or on military targets in close proximity to civilian targets or in civilian areas, is absolutely illegal though!
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 19:08 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:Using incendiaries against civilian targets, or on military targets in close proximity to civilian targets or in civilian areas, is absolutely illegal though! Really? This seems odd. What international law is it based on?
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 19:10 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:This Israeli civilian is literally more professional than US police.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 19:12 |
|
Xander77 posted:Not to go all TFR on you, but shooting someone in the feet is "literally" the least "professional" thing you can do. Disabling an assailant rather than killing them when possible. Seems pretty pro to me. But who am I to say?
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 19:17 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Disabling an assailant rather than killing them when possible. Seems pretty pro to me. But who am I to say? Most of the US military is squarely taught only to shoot for center of mass, and most of our police force is made up of ex military.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 19:18 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Disabling an assailant rather than killing them when possible. Seems pretty pro to me. But who am I to say? Guns aren't meant to be used as non-lethal weapons, and you put yourself and others in more danger by attempting to do so. You don't point a gun at someone you aren't prepared to kill. If the shot ends up being non-lethal, that's a bonus. This is taught in every concealed carry class.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 19:20 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:Using incendiaries against civilian targets, or on military targets in close proximity to civilian targets or in civilian areas, is absolutely illegal though! team overhead smash posted:Really? This seems odd. What international law is it based on? quote: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. Israel isn't a signatory to the protocol, but you could probably make a case that a normative prohibition exists.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 19:46 |
|
Not like anyone really follows International Laws these days...
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 19:52 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Most of the US military is squarely taught only to shoot for center of mass, and most of our police force is made up of ex military. fool_of_sound posted:Guns aren't meant to be used as non-lethal weapons, and you put yourself and others in more danger by attempting to do so. You don't point a gun at someone you aren't prepared to kill. If the shot ends up being non-lethal, that's a bonus. This is taught in every concealed carry class. Okay, I'll admit right now that I could easily not know poo poo about nothing, but in my month-long desk-jockey version of IDF basic training, I was taught that our arms use protocol when defending an outpost was:
From this I extrapolate that you would generally shoot to disable if possible, and only shoot to kill as a last resort. I am willing to concede that this was an unwarranted extrapolation, though.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 20:13 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Okay, I'll admit right now that I could easily not know poo poo about nothing, but in my month-long desk-jockey version of IDF basic training, I was taught that our arms use protocol when defending an outpost was: Nope. From both Basic Training and refresher courses: Say Halt, and if they fail to comply, raise weapon and repeat, then if they fail to comply shoot for center of mass. Shoot to kill, as you really cannot realistically shoot to wound as a standard infantryman. If the IDF trains like that, not only are they very sure of the marksmanship of their infantry, they trust them to make judgement calls about when to kill or wound.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 20:15 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Nope. From both Basic Training and refresher courses: Say Halt, and if they fail to comply, shoot for center of mass. Shoot to kill, as you really cannot realistically shoot to wound as a standard infantryman. That seems reasonable. quote:If the IDF trains like that, not only are they very sure of the marksmanship of their infantry, they trust them to make judgement calls about when to kill or wound. In retrospect, it just feeds into a lot of IDF doctrine being compassion theater on the battlefield.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 20:17 |
|
Let's just nip in the bud the idea that military RoE, law enforcement escalation of force, and the rights and responsibilities of an individual defending themselves from armed attack are in any way related to each other.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 20:21 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Let's just nip in the bud the idea that military RoE, law enforcement escalation of force, and the rights and responsibilities of an individual defending themselves from armed attack are in any way related to each other. I mean, it does relate in the sense that it would be interesting to see how IDF RoE informed this security person's decisions to defend others. I don't think it was self-defense but more of defending others, in which case if this is an irresponsible use of arms, the ultimately reasonable result does not change the nature of the risk of potential harm which might be caused if this becomes acceptable behavior.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 20:24 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It comes from The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Protocol III, which states in part: I've looked it up and it does appear in the International Red Cross's Customary International Humanitarian Law database but in a less strict form of "If incendiary weapons are used, particular care must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects." You can see the law here and the rationale here Just for the record I'm fully supportive of such laws and the reason I called it odd is just that it doesn't seem to gel with how other conventional armaments can be used. With a bomb you could drop it on a military target and cause significant civilian casualties as long as the amount of civilian casualties was not disproportionate to the military objective achieved. I'm assuming that it must be the nature of the suffering caused by incendiary weapons, as well as the potential for it to go out of control, which means incendiary weapons are held to a higher standard. team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Dec 3, 2014 |
# ? Dec 3, 2014 20:27 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Okay, I'll admit right now that I could easily not know poo poo about nothing, but in my month-long desk-jockey version of IDF basic training, I was taught that our arms use protocol when defending an outpost was: Just a note on "shoot to disable". - Limbs are really, really hard to hit when someone is moving - Shooting and then attempting to assess whether or not it worked is dangerous when someone is attacking you or other people - Limbs still have arteries, and pretty much shooting people anywhere is lethal/has the potential to be Realistically, if you shoot at someone you might as well shoot them in the centre of mass because its a lot more likely to work, you're less likely to miss, and firearms are not meant to disable people. Less-than-lethal weapons exist because guns are really bad at not killing people.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 20:28 |
|
uh, you guys both skipped over warning shots.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 20:39 |
|
Brainbread posted:Just a note on "shoot to disable". I may be misremembering it. The rationale for shooting at the legs may have been more to shoot to intimidate, as in unlikely to hit but likely to show you mean business. Anybody who did a full combat/guard duty service with the IDF want to weigh in here? It's been more than ten years for me. Volkerball posted:uh, you guys both skipped over warning shots. Yeah, I think maybe I'm mixing up shooting the legs and shooting in the air as a warning shot or something. As I said, it's been a while.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 20:41 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I mean, it does relate in the sense that it would be interesting to see how IDF RoE informed this security person's decisions to defend others. team overhead smash posted:I'm assuming that it must be the nature of the suffering caused by incendiary weapons, as well as the potential for it to go out of control, which means incendiary weapons are held to a higher standard.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 20:51 |
|
Standard lethal force doctrine might not apply so rigidly. If you've supposedly got a terror wave going on it would make sense to wound and capture one of the perpetrators.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 21:08 |
|
There's an enormous difference between an outpost (which I assume is fairly isolated) and a crowded supermarket. Trying to aim at limbs makes is much more likely that you miss, which then means an unintended person can get killed / wounded. Besides that, a person shot in their legs can still shoot you, throw a knife at you, someone else etc. Absurd Alhazred posted:I may be misremembering it. The rationale for shooting at the legs may have been more to shoot to intimidate, as in unlikely to hit but likely to show you mean business. Anybody who did a full combat/guard duty service with the IDF want to weigh in here? It's been more than ten years for me. Don't 2nd and 3rd shots tend to be higher than the first? I honestly don't know how hard is it to continuously fire at the legs but it seems like your later shots would be at the chest anyway. Though the problem with shooting above the head is where the bullet ends up.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 21:24 |
|
Don't Finnish police have a pretty reliable shoot to wound policy? I remember this exact same chat coming up in the Brown shooting thread when we had a bunch of guys going on about how drawing a gun means it must be fed with blood or whatever.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 21:53 |
|
Panzeh posted:Nobody goes around calling the Iraqi Army the Most Moral Army in the world. That's the difference. What kind of sadistic psychopath would be fine with the IDF killing and brutalizing Palestinian children as long as they didn't insist they were the "most moral army"? I guess the same sort whose problem isn't that IDF bombs are killing Palestinian children but that those bombs are being dropped from F-16s the IDF got American foreign aid money for purchasing. It's just such an amorally narcissistic worldview, the idea that the killing of innocent non-combatants isn't a problem but only how they reflect on one's self-image. Can someone explain to me why their ego is more important than Palestinian lives?
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 23:25 |
|
The Insect Court posted:What kind of sadistic psychopath would be fine with the IDF killing and brutalizing Palestinian children as long as they didn't insist they were the "most moral army"? That the US is supplying Israel with these weapons has been a point of conversation in this and the previous threads several time. Not only are your posts low-effort, but you don't even bother following the threads.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 23:52 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:That the US is supplying Israel with these weapons has been a point of conversation in this and the previous threads several time. Not only are your posts low-effort, but you don't even bother following the threads. How did you think he got his custom tag?
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 23:52 |
|
SedanChair posted:*eyebrows raise, leave forehead* There is a lot of silly stuff going on in this conversation. I guess a 'chemical weapon' would refer primarily to things you can inhale? Except when you get white phosphorous on you you end up inhaling it along with your clothes and your skin so maybe that was in bad faith or ignorance or wherever those intersect.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 23:53 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:That the US is supplying Israel with these weapons has been a point of conversation in this and the previous threads several time. Not only are your posts low-effort, but you don't even bother following the threads. America makes money off its arms exports, why should I be against Israel's purchase of another F-35 squadron with optionals for future solid state laser upgrade after naval proving demonstrates efficacy?
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 23:56 |
|
My Imaginary GF posted:America makes money off its arms exports, why should I be against Israel's purchase of another F-35 squadron with optionals for future solid state laser upgrade after naval proving demonstrates efficacy? Because of what they will do with it.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2014 23:58 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Because of what they will do with it. I am absolutely in favor of suckering the Israelis into buying the F-35 with the knowledge that doing so will only impair their military readiness.
|
# ? Dec 4, 2014 00:09 |
|
Jack of Hearts posted:I am absolutely in favor of suckering the Israelis into buying the F-35 with the knowledge that doing so will only impair their military readiness. I laughed when I read that England was actually trading us old Harriers for F-35s. But also paying for the F-35s. Which definitely won't kill more marines than the Harriers did. At all.
|
# ? Dec 4, 2014 00:38 |
|
MIGF has stated before that the US 'makes money' from our relationship with Israel, but I can't seem to find any evidence to support that online. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_military_relations#Foreign_military_sales only has 01-05 data for sales but it still has purchases < aid. And even if they were even the majority of the purchases go to private companies, not back to the Government.
|
# ? Dec 4, 2014 01:03 |
|
snyprmag posted:MIGF has stated before that the US 'makes money' from our relationship with Israel, but I can't seem to find any evidence to support that online. Not to mention the amount of funding we give them
|
# ? Dec 4, 2014 01:12 |
|
If you really want to make money off of arms exports, we should really be talking about selling to Iran. Iran's biggest competition are nations that already have American firepower, and we can sell Iran everything from missiles to assault rifles to even simple trucks. Israel just needs a few high end weapons, Iran needs every level of hardware and we could even maybe get them to give us a discount on some oil in exchange. MIGF, would you be against such a profitable venture?
|
# ? Dec 4, 2014 01:52 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 04:30 |
|
Guys, you all fell for the classic trap: acknowledging MIGF's existence.
|
# ? Dec 4, 2014 03:05 |