weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
To flechette or not to flechette?
- Thread starter Jissy
- Start date
Of course the issue is that Israel says the land is theirs, and the U.N. supports them, which means the land will remain in their hands for the forseeable future. But what I was getting at is that it's not one-sided "bad Arab terrorists, valiant Israeli defenders". The question once again comes up though, given the usage of flechettes in Darfur, and the indiscriminate nature of flechette ammunition, is their use in urban, or other civilian heavy, environments justified? I think not.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
No, the question is if you fire from a position with human shields, are you then untouchable ?
Look from the other side, lets say israelis take some heavy duty duct tape, strap a palestinian, (or israeli) onto the front of the tank.
Are they now untouchable from palestinian fire ?
For me this is kidnapping and blackmail, and whoever does it is not a soldier, but a war criminal.
The blame is on the criminal holding hostage, just as if a criminal shoot the hostage himself when police assault, or a policemans bullet miss the criminal, and hit the victim.
Look from the other side, lets say israelis take some heavy duty duct tape, strap a palestinian, (or israeli) onto the front of the tank.
Are they now untouchable from palestinian fire ?
For me this is kidnapping and blackmail, and whoever does it is not a soldier, but a war criminal.
The blame is on the criminal holding hostage, just as if a criminal shoot the hostage himself when police assault, or a policemans bullet miss the criminal, and hit the victim.
Last edited:
Hmm - interesting responses:
You have a couple of teenagers milling around until a car shows up and then a guy gets out and shoulders a camera??, while talking to the kids points the camera?? at the tank. My response would of been the same thing, and that decision comes from experience.
You have a couple of teenagers milling around until a car shows up and then a guy gets out and shoulders a camera??, while talking to the kids points the camera?? at the tank. My response would of been the same thing, and that decision comes from experience.
Last edited:
Investigator
New Member
Experience? Admin: Post Reported by another Member. Text deleted. Apart from the comment being out of order, you may need to read what was said carefully and properly rather than jump the gun and pass comment on what you wanted to read or thought you read
This requires no further input from you and if you want to discuss it further then PM Web or another Mod
Last edited by a moderator:
BTW, are we talking about this video?
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=80475&newsChannel=topNews
I can just emphasize that there are things which are not that smart.
One has just to think about how it looks like for the tank crew.
A car arrives several hundred meters away some guys jump out of it and other point at your tank. Than one guy takes a big device and puts it onto his shoulder. He starts looking through some kind of optic and points the device onto you.
As Eckherl said. One has to fire to make sure that your tank is not at the receiving end of an ATGM.
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=80475&newsChannel=topNews
I can just emphasize that there are things which are not that smart.
One has just to think about how it looks like for the tank crew.
A car arrives several hundred meters away some guys jump out of it and other point at your tank. Than one guy takes a big device and puts it onto his shoulder. He starts looking through some kind of optic and points the device onto you.
As Eckherl said. One has to fire to make sure that your tank is not at the receiving end of an ATGM.
Just seen the video yesterday, looks like the camera man was up on an embankment and slightly obscured by bushes when he was killed.
So I guess if it was an accident that would be another reason that the shot was taken.
But we will never know the facts. Those Tanks have pretty powerful optics, I hope the crew were as discerning as they could be.
You have to tailor your responce to the threat level, Hamas dont have any ATGM's, they do have RPG-7's, and it would be a one in a million shot to hit from that distance.
Safe to say he was a brave man, that was the second time he was attacked by the IDF, the first time his press car(clearly marked I may add) was hit by a missile fired by an IDF warplane, he was injured and survived.
So I guess if it was an accident that would be another reason that the shot was taken.
But we will never know the facts. Those Tanks have pretty powerful optics, I hope the crew were as discerning as they could be.
You have to tailor your responce to the threat level, Hamas dont have any ATGM's, they do have RPG-7's, and it would be a one in a million shot to hit from that distance.
Safe to say he was a brave man, that was the second time he was attacked by the IDF, the first time his press car(clearly marked I may add) was hit by a missile fired by an IDF warplane, he was injured and survived.
Nevertheless one doesn't really know if there has been no flow of ATGMs into the hands of the Hamas.
I wouldn't bet my life on that and would fire anyway.
BTW, here is the video.
I just forgot to add it to my last post.
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=80475&newsChannel=topNews
I wouldn't bet my life on that and would fire anyway.
BTW, here is the video.
I just forgot to add it to my last post.
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=80475&newsChannel=topNews
A few years ago there was the incident of an ambulance being used to transport RPG's - it also was clearly marked. It wasn't until forensics were provided that targeting of that vehicle was validated.
This thread however will not deteriorate into a series of "what if's" as I can see it sliding very rapidly down a path of finger pointing and justification.
On another note. My daughter did personal protection training and used to be assigned to running courses for local journalists on foreign assignments. basically the production houses send the entire teams to these companies to undertake harsh environment and adversarial contact courses.
One of the things that she has had to regularly reinforce is that any camera people with shoulder mounted cameras should always avoid pointing them at any active military unit as it can be perceived as an ATGM. As she explains, the soldiers must make rapid decisions on whether the shouldered article in the distance is a clear and present or emergent threat to their safety - they have literally seconds to make a judgement.
She has also told them a number of times where in northern iraq (near the kurdish border) border guards have been attacked by RPG and MG equiped insurgents who have approached in either taxis or cars with "PRESS" emblazoned on the sides, roof, bonnet and flagged.
You don't get multiple choice - you make the call that is safest for you and your team.
Some journos will always ignore advice, and in the last few years there are any number who's decision resulted in them being killed. A recent classic example was the unfortunate outcome for a dutch journalist in East Timor in 99. Journo's forget sometimes that their protection under the conventions is geared for State conflict and rules of war in State vs State contacts, the recognitiom and rights of the freedom of the press (transit amd access) does not have the same currency with non state combatants.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #33
Well Transient,
glad to see you like hitting nails on heads...almost? I was not suggesting a ban on the weapon, but questioning its use in a particular circumstance, and whether it was mistake, or on purpose? You chose not to address these questions, instead inventing a 'ban' scenario, which makes you seem rather disingenuous.
Of course all weapons will cause 'collateral' damage, but some are designed to cause more than others, as illustrated by the flechette.
I wonder whether there should there be an enforceable UN resolution, that states you cannot use this type of weapon in a highly populated and built up civilian area, eg, Gasa and in Iraq.
The point is to police and neutralize attackers, not innocents, and then win over the rest by your humanity, is it not? Is not acquiring peace the objective?
cheers
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #34
Thank you for your more level headed repsonse Feanor. Some people here seem to have a preordained agenda themselves, by reading between the lines, this only makes them seem rather paranoid, besides the fact, they did not answer the logical questions I posed.
My questions are valid, and they stand, and for the most part remain unanswered. The objection I see to the use of this type of weapon applies to all areas of conflict which come into civilian areas, such as Iraq, countries in Africa and Afghanistan.
ALL people deserve respect. And yes, if you enter into the conflict as a combatant, you know the risk you are taking. However, the idea is, war is used as a last resort, in order to attain a peace, is it not?
That is only achieved by using appropriate force and weaponry, so the civilians may get on with their lives. The quicker that happens, the quicker a resolution and the longer lasting the peace. It just makes a logical argument, as far as I can see.
cheers
and I look forward to some responses that address the idea of a specified weaponry (UN list?) for particular areas of conflict, in order to limit civilian casualties.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #35
Thanks Lurker,
that explains an awful lot to me actually, and I can certainly see, from a tank commander's perspective, that to make a call in a few seconds would be extremely difficult, so one would expect that commander to err on the side of caution. I can easily see the cameraman speeding to a stop, jumping out with the camera and pointing it...
I also did not know that there had been numerous incidents of faked ambos and journos, with combatants using it for cover, that really complicates things!
This then opens up the idea of new weaponry development that somehow circumvents such mistakes?
What about some sort of satellite linked tracker device that keeps a non-combatants' 'real time' data base, accessible to commanders? Is that possible?
that explains an awful lot to me actually, and I can certainly see, from a tank commander's perspective, that to make a call in a few seconds would be extremely difficult, so one would expect that commander to err on the side of caution. I can easily see the cameraman speeding to a stop, jumping out with the camera and pointing it...
I also did not know that there had been numerous incidents of faked ambos and journos, with combatants using it for cover, that really complicates things!
This then opens up the idea of new weaponry development that somehow circumvents such mistakes?
What about some sort of satellite linked tracker device that keeps a non-combatants' 'real time' data base, accessible to commanders? Is that possible?
There are defenitely ROEs for the use of heavy weaponry in urban and/or heavily populated areas.
A GI in Iraq cannot call in an artillery strike that easy. The same applies for an IDF soldier in Gaza who wants to call in an airstrike.
Every nation writes these ROEs in accordance with their experience in these situations.
Now the question is, should there be a UN resolution to enforce very restrictive ROEs?
The problem I see is that such a resolution would be heavily in favor of irregular forces. It is hard enough as it is now to neutralize hostile forces in an urban environment full of civilians.
Knowing that these areas are immune to an even wider range of weapons than they are already now is going to produce safe heavens for irregular forces and makes it even easier for them to use civilians as shields.
BTW, the Bundeswehr is also offering courses for journos who are going to enter crisis regions. Apart from theoretical stuff these courses include a lot of practical work including getting shot over bysmall arms, 20mm and 120mm as well as a wide variety of IEDs and mines.
Such a course may very well safe lifes in the future.
A GI in Iraq cannot call in an artillery strike that easy. The same applies for an IDF soldier in Gaza who wants to call in an airstrike.
Every nation writes these ROEs in accordance with their experience in these situations.
Now the question is, should there be a UN resolution to enforce very restrictive ROEs?
The problem I see is that such a resolution would be heavily in favor of irregular forces. It is hard enough as it is now to neutralize hostile forces in an urban environment full of civilians.
Knowing that these areas are immune to an even wider range of weapons than they are already now is going to produce safe heavens for irregular forces and makes it even easier for them to use civilians as shields.
BTW, the Bundeswehr is also offering courses for journos who are going to enter crisis regions. Apart from theoretical stuff these courses include a lot of practical work including getting shot over bysmall arms, 20mm and 120mm as well as a wide variety of IEDs and mines.
Such a course may very well safe lifes in the future.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Flechettes = just another weapon on the battlefield. Not particularly more cruel than so many other, but more effective against infantry targets. It was developed to combat atgm crews...
No one is going to ban them, just as machine guns won't get banned.
The UN only has the power its members vest in it, and no one is going to restrict the use of flechettes, because they are just another weapon on the battlefield.
Simple as that. No constructs. No false premise.
No one is going to ban them, just as machine guns won't get banned.
The UN only has the power its members vest in it, and no one is going to restrict the use of flechettes, because they are just another weapon on the battlefield.
Simple as that. No constructs. No false premise.
I'm against everything that encourage soldiers/criminals to use hostage, -it will only increase taking hostage as human shields.
If the soldier/criminal otoh knows it will avail him nothing except the media outcry after he is dead, it will reduce hostage taking.
I also think whoever is cought open fire with human shields should be hanged as a war criminal.
If the soldier/criminal otoh knows it will avail him nothing except the media outcry after he is dead, it will reduce hostage taking.
I also think whoever is cought open fire with human shields should be hanged as a war criminal.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #40
Oh, ok, but yeah, I see what you imply, then the "bad guys" get one from some journo, and then they slither up to a Abrams tank or something and BLEWY!! I guess...