The Gaming Den

I feel like we're trying to give each other a high five and missing.

It makes me laugh.

Koumei wrote:... and napalm in a cup! This coffee is so hot it's banned under the Geneva convention!

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:About Napalm, I know that's illegal.

Actually, it's not. Read up on your Jus in Bello.

Sorry for being totally pedantic and intruding into your righteous indignation fuelled rhetoric-rant, but Napalm is not illegal. I just hate seeing the spread of misinformation that I have to render myself a target of hatred in order to make sure that people learn the truth.

The truth, it's important and stuff.

Well, according to Protocol III of the Geneva Conventions, the use of Incendiaries on civilians or forests, as well as the use of Incendiaries from the air, is illegal.

Heath wrote:The truth, it's important and stuff.

Sure. But coming in and saying that Napalm is "not illegal" is just as technically incorrect as the Count saying that it "is." Napalm, while not itself illegal, is illegal when used for practically anything you might actually want to use it for.

The basic exceptions are that you can still use flame throwers to clear bunkers and molotovs to incapacitate armored vehicles. Pretty much anything else is a violation of Article III.

-Username17

Heath, we're all about truth here. I mean, most of us would have left if we didn't.

Also Frank, thanks.

So... basically you can use these types of weapons, but not against civilians, and only when the benefits of using such weapons are in direct corrolation to the military benefits gained.

So, flame throwers into trenches or bunkers; but not for use strictly in other situations.

While Molotovs are for vehicle burning, but not for room-clearing or lobbing ahead of you when you're behind a wall and have advancing opponents. I'm guessing that grenades are more suited for those roles.

Yeah, and what I'm saying is that the America military slightly changed the ingredients to napalm, defining it as "not napalm", and uses it on people and villages in Afghanistan.

There are laws against many of the weapons the US uses.

That doesn't stop the US from using them.

-Crissa

PhoneLobster wrote:

Judging__Eagle wrote:Phone,

We agree that people should be sold items that are essentially weapons, right?

I think that's the only real issue.

Er, what?

No really, what?

So to go back to my initial confusion inducing sarcasm its now OK for McDonalds to sell, as coffeee...

Hot Coffee, Coffee so hot it kills you, Coffee so hot it is explosive super heated steam, and now all new... A grenade in a cup!

No really, what?

What actually happened is JE forgetting to type 2 letters and an apostrophe: "shouldn't" ... though sure the ensuing discussion was hilarious.

Rofl. Thanks for that Biigode.

I guess that I shouln't write when half asleep, or suffering from weeks of limited sleep.

On the other hand, as much hilarity and confusion ensued, I'll proceed as I am doing now. Mostly due to lack of choice.

Judging__Eagle wrote:Rofl. Thanks for that Biigode.

I guess that I shouln't write when half asleep, or suffering from weeks of limited sleep.

On the other hand, as much hilarity and confusion ensued, I'll proceed as I am doing now. Mostly due to lack of choice.

It's not any less funny now than it was when we found Calibron and Caliborn were ... surprise, surprise ... the same person.

FrankTrollman wrote:Well, according to Protocol III of the Geneva Conventions, the use of Incendiaries on civilians or forests, as well as the use of Incendiaries from the air, is illegal.

Heath wrote:The truth, it's important and stuff.

Sure. But coming in and saying that Napalm is "not illegal" is just as technically incorrect as the Count saying that it "is." Napalm, while not itself illegal, is illegal when used for practically anything you might actually want to use it for.

The basic exceptions are that you can still use flame throwers to clear bunkers and molotovs to incapacitate armored vehicles. Pretty much anything else is a violation of Protocol III.

Actually, delivering incendiaries from the air is totally legal. Reread Article 2 of Protocol III. Article 2 exists solely to protect civilians. Subsection 2 of Article 2 mentions an exclusion on air delivered incendiaries solely against targets in the midst of civilian concentrations, in preparation for subsection 3 where it excludes the usage of other means of delivering incendiary weapons in fewer cases.

Napalm is not illegal, risking civilian suffering by dropping Napalm on nearby military targets is illegal. The act instead of the object used to commit that act is illegal.

Crissa wrote:There are laws against many of the weapons the US uses.

That doesn't stop the US from using them.

Sure, there are rules against weapons the US uses. In other countries.

The US has to agree to Protocols of the Geneva convention before they apply to the US armed forces. It seems rather stupid to agree not to use particular weapon systems and then to use them. As I understand it, the Geneva convention permits people subject to a breaking of the Geneva convention to break some other part of the Geneva convention in reprisal. Dropping Napalm on civilians leads to your soldiers being kicked in the teeth.

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:Yeah, and what I'm saying is that the America military slightly changed the ingredients to napalm, defining it as "not napalm", and uses it on people and villages in Afghanistan.

Which is totally illegal unless the change in ingredients has managed to change the properties of this "not napalm" such that it isn't classed as an incendiary weapon (by making it into an explosive).

So go complain to your local senator about the disgraceful conduct of your armed forces. Don't complain about it being "nearly napalm", because that's not the issue here. Complain about the fact that your armed forces are subjecting relatively innocent people to horrifying amounts of pain in a foreign country.

Don't try to skirt around the issue by taking offense from the fact that they're using something like Napalm. Be offended because your armed forces are making a deliberate decision to burn living, breathing people.

This might not, actually, be illegal. Certainly, the modified form of Protocol III that the US signed permits usage of incendiary weapons in cases where the usage of incendiaries is judged to cause less suffering to civilians than a comparable explosive-oriented attack.

Judging__Eagle wrote:So... basically you can use these types of weapons, but not against civilians, and only when the benefits of using such weapons are in direct corrolation to the military benefits gained.

So, flame throwers into trenches or bunkers; but not for use strictly in other situations.

While Molotovs are for vehicle burning, but not for room-clearing or lobbing ahead of you when you're behind a wall and have advancing opponents. I'm guessing that grenades are more suited for those roles.

You totally can use Molotovs for room-clearance if the room is sufficiently isolated from civilians that there's minimal chance of them being hurt by it. If your city is totally abandoned by civilians, then you can run around with flamethrowers going off all over the place if you want.

If the vehicle you're trying to burn is surrounded by a gaggle of civilians (say they're handing out chocolate bars), then lobbing a molotov at it is just as illegal as dropping Napalm on those same civilians. There is no difference.

Heath:

First off, fuck you.

Second off, there isn't one word of complaint in any of the posts I have. I'm making observations, not complaining. I am sick of people fucking accusing anything and everything of being a complaint.

Third, I don't do things just because you tell me to. If I did everything I was told to do on the internet, I'd be fucking dead right now because I've been told to "go die in a fire". I'm not doing something just because you said to.

Fourth, fuck you.

Fifth, saying my troops are acting dishonorably is considered sedition, and I don't want to fucking go to GitMo and be waterboarded for the rest of my life.

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
That'll be enough of that.
[/TGFBS]