• BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It was the tool they had at the time and one less occupier is better than one unused ATGM.

    • galloog1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You aren’t wrong. I’m not sure about the context here but using this type of weapon on infantry is normally considered a war crime. I really want to emphasize the lack of context but folks should know.

      Edit: do you guys downvote all true things you find inconvenient?

      Section 6.2 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin states: “The use of certain conventional weapons, such as … incendiary weapons is prohibited.”

      Antitank guns are legal, incendiary weapons such as the above are not. Napalm was made illegal against infantry through this but also antitank industry weapons.

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        using this type of weapon on infantry is normally considered a war crime

        I’m going to need a source on that. Hitting infantry with a missile is…pretty fucking common.

        • galloog1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Section 6.2 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin states: “The use of certain conventional weapons, such as … incendiary weapons is prohibited.”

          Antitank guns are legal, incendiary weapons such as the above are not. Napalm was made illegal against infantry through this but also antitank industry weapons.

          • teft@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s not an incendiary weapon. Incendiary weapons are like napalm, thermite, willy p. This is just a regular high explosive round. Probably something with a shaped charge like a HEAT (high explosive anti tank) warhead.

      • teft@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not a war crime to use explosives on single soldiers. If it was then a claymore or other mine would be illegal also. This sounds like one of those things soldiers tell each other on the battlefield but isn’t true, like 50 cal will rip flesh off a person if you fire it close enough. Or that it’s a war crime to use 50 cal on people.

        Here is the UN list of war crimes.

        https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml

        • galloog1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Section 6.2 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin states: “The use of certain conventional weapons, such as … incendiary weapons is prohibited.”

          Antitank guns are legal, incendiary weapons such as the above are not. Napalm was made illegal against infantry through this but also antitank industry weapons.

          • teft@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s not an incendiary weapon. Incendiary weapons are like napalm, thermite, willy p. This is just a regular high explosive round. Probably something with a shaped charge like a HEAT (high explosive anti tank) warhead.

      • 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