• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

M825A1, smokescreens and empty shells

Ziggurat said:
Translation: I'm making up rationalizations for my position in the absence of any evidence.
Click to expand...

Not really. It's close to the reason it is illegal to use teargas in war (you are free to use it under other conditions mind).

While baning white phosophorus outright it unlikely to happen nations useing it in certian contexts probably need to be careful about what their toops are up to.
 
geni said:
Not really.
Click to expand...

Yes, really. There is, at the moment, no evidence WP has been used by Israel to burn down buildings.

While baning white phosophorus outright it unlikely to happen nations useing it in certian contexts probably need to be careful about what their toops are up to.
Click to expand...

Nations should be careful about what any well-armed troops are up to in combat. Soldiers violating the ROE is a risk regardless of the weapon used.
 
If you give a commander on the ground the choice of;

1. Killing a large number of guys he knows in a urban assault.

2. Off-label use of an otherwise-prohibited weapon that results in no friendly casualties.

What is he going to do?

Best not to present him with that choice.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yes, really. There is, at the moment, no evidence WP has been used by Israel to burn down buildings.
Click to expand...

That isn't actualy relivant to a hypothetical example.


Nations should be careful about what any well-armed troops are up to in combat. Soldiers violating the ROE is a risk regardless of the weapon used.
Click to expand...

There are differing degrees of risk posed by differing situations and equipment.
 
BenBurch said:
If you give a commander on the ground the choice of;

1. Killing a large number of guys he knows in a urban assault.

2. Off-label use of an otherwise-prohibited weapon that results in no friendly casualties.

What is he going to do?
Click to expand...

1. Where's your evidence that this is was choice before commanders, let alone that any of them made the choice to go "off-label"? You have none.

2. Your original scenario didn't even have this dilemma, because commanders could simply flatten chosen buildings with conventional munitions (a rather "on-label" use).
 
Get off your high horse.

I am not telling you what they have done, but what they surely WILL do if war keeps being fought with those weapons available to commanders of ANY nation.

If you don't understand that much about human beings, there is no help for you.
 
Oh yeah, in case you were not smart enough to figure it out, openly FLATTENING civilian buildings is avoided because video of that doesn't look good.

An accidental fire caused by marker shells, well, that's just an accident you know.
 
BenBurch said:
Oh yeah, in case you were not smart enough to figure it out, openly FLATTENING civilian buildings is avoided because video of that doesn't look good.

An accidental fire caused by marker shells, well, that's just an accident you know.
Click to expand...

I do not think this makes much sense. One thing you want in combat situation is reliability. If you think you need to flatten a building, you will not use means which give you a small chance of achieving that aim.

I am sure you can construct a special scenario where the soldiers in the field do not care much one way or the other. However, as a general rule non reliable means have no place on the battlefield.
 
Doctor Evil said:
I do not think this makes much sense. One thing you want in combat situation is reliability. If you think you need to flatten a building, you will not use means which give you a small chance of achieving that aim.

I am sure you can construct a special scenario where the soldiers in the field do not care much one way or the other. However, as a general rule non reliable means have no place on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

I think you UTTERLY misunderstood either the situation or the tactical implications.
 
BenBurch said:
Get off your high horse.

I am not telling you what they have done, but what they surely WILL do if war keeps being fought with those weapons available to commanders of ANY nation.
Click to expand...

Except that WP weapons aren't really much more lethal than conventional munitions. In fact, they are NOT particularly effective against buildings, which was your scenario. Yeah, they might burn down a flammable structure, but 1) that does very little against concrete structures, 2) if it's the inhabitants that you're really after, lighting the building on fire is a poor alternative to flattening it, because they'll typically have time to escape, which merely moves your problem instead of solving it, and 3) if bad press is what you're trying to avoid, a burning building makes for more dramatic footage than a flattened one. Especially if the fire spreads, which isn't exactly something that the commander ordering the attacks can control.

So even if you want to talk about what you think might happen, worries about WP seem pretty low on the list. You can come up with hypotheticals involving whether or not to use ordinary munitions that are equally problematic, and more likely to actually occur.
 
FireGarden said:
That's different to using WP in a city. But pictures reveal where the smoke is: a city.
Click to expand...

Just curious where you stand on Hamas firing rockets from cities ... or using children as human shields from which to shoot at Israeli soldiers during street fighting ... or moving women and children on top of buildings that the Israelis announced they are going to bomb ... or putting rocket making factories in the middle of densely populated areas ... or using mosques to store weapons ... or any of the other hundred war crimes one could name?
 
BeAChooser said:
Just curious where you stand on Hamas firing rockets from cities ... or using children as human shields from which to shoot at Israeli soldiers during street fighting ... or moving women and children on top of buildings that the Israelis announced they are going to bomb ... or putting rocket making factories in the middle of densely populated areas ... or using mosques to store weapons ... or any of the other hundred war crimes one could name?
Click to expand...
I'm agin' it - but then I consider Hamas war criminals (possibly because they violate the Rules of Warfare/Geneva with what looks to me like impunity - while Israel gets flack for following them (possibly for the most part).
 
fuelair said:
I'm agin' it - but then I consider Hamas war criminals (possibly because they violate the Rules of Warfare/Geneva with what looks to me like impunity - while Israel gets flack for following them (possibly for the most part).
Click to expand...

Why the ban on independent journalists in Gaza? Then we would have a much better idea just to what extent it does or does not follow the rules. There has been a long history of the IDF intimidating and attacking journalists.

http://cpj.org/2007/02/idf-detains-tv-director-attacks-journalists-during.php

http://www.newssafety.com/index.php...-journalists&option=com_content&Itemid=100383
 
BenBurch said:
Oh yeah, in case you were not smart enough to figure it out, openly FLATTENING civilian buildings is avoided because video of that doesn't look good.

An accidental fire caused by marker shells, well, that's just an accident you know.
Click to expand...
Gaza is made of concrete, not going to get many fires there no matter what.
 
a_unique_person said:
Why the ban on independent journalists in Gaza?
Click to expand...

Perhaps because in the past so-called independent journalists have proven themselves to be little more than the tools of Hamas, Hezbollah and the "Palestinian cause" ... manufacturing and staging propaganda instead of reporting the news in a fair and consistent manner. :cool:
 
BeAChooser said:
Just curious where you stand on Hamas firing rockets from cities ... or using children as human shields from which to shoot at Israeli soldiers during street fighting ... or moving women and children on top of buildings that the Israelis announced they are going to bomb ... or putting rocket making factories in the middle of densely populated areas ... or using mosques to store weapons ... or any of the other hundred war crimes one could name?
Click to expand...

I don't think you are curious, but I'll answer anyway.

Rockets shouldn't be fired from cities or at cities. The claims of using children/women as human shields is only a claim. If it is based in fact, then it is deplorable. The same is true for the other allegations.


Perhaps you'll answer this:

What do you think of the Israelis using Palestinian's as human shields? What? You think that's a silly question? B'tselem doesn't think so:
http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/Index.asp

Of course, whenever an Arab accuses an Israeli of doing something wrong, he had better have video evidence of it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18058725/

Otherwise people like you won't believe him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom