Extensive video footage of the 7th Infantry Division of the Pakistan Army fighting members of the Pakistani Taliban. Includes hexacopter drone strikes, 81-mm mortar strikes and one scene of close quarters infantry combat. https://files.catbox.moe/vvpprt.mp4
>>65232976interesting stuff, thanks OP
>>65232976warcrimealso, they weren't wearing uniforms, so clearly the Pakis are killing dozens of civilian women and children
>>65232988Upon further review, offense employed a white phosphorus smoke grenade to screen its final assault from enemy observation. Play is fair, touchdown stands.
>>65233001lol that's literally the Taliban position itself
>>65233002No, the position is inside the buildings, as you can tell from them dumping all the normal grenades on the roof. The WP goes off in the courtyard. The actual point behind the shitpost is "don't be brown about calling everything a warcrime, there is a LOT of fine detail that a 2-second video clip is never going to capture".
Do they worship Elon Musk?
>>65233011>don't be brown>t. Paki
>>65232988Using WP isn't a warcrime
>>65233016What the fuck are you even doing on this board if you can't rules lawyer warcrime conventions? Would you like a tutorial?
>>65233022using it on people with the intent of inflicting casualties isand it clearly was in that webm, because they were dropping WP on the target building itself, instead of hypothetically screening an assault force by dropping WP on e.g. the ground outside>>65233035jokes aside, the point I was making is that we've been using them for proper smokescreens but the Pakis and the rest of the global south have always accused us, in every instance, of warcrimesjust highlighting the hypocrisy here
>>65233039>using it on people with the intent of inflicting casualties isThe US uses it that way too
>>65233022Using air-dropped incendiary weapons in civilian concentrations (built-up areas) is a war crime if you've signed the 3rd protocol of the convention on certain conventional weapons like Pakistan has.>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.It's only when you're using WP primarily as an obscurant (smoke shells) that you can use it in cities.>(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:>(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;Does dropping a WP shell from a drone as a purposefully jerry-rigged incendiary weapon count as an incendiary weapon? I would argue it does, especially since they put a kill-count of burned enemies in the footage, but nobody's taken it to court yet.
>>65233011They literally put (BURNT INSIDE) on the screen right after the WP kek
>>65233039>using it on people with the intent of inflicting casualties isIt absolutely is not.If you heard that from your unit's lawyer, his opinion comes from a PR perspective and possibly internal regulations, not from an actual legal one.
>>65233042no, jeet>>65233046yes, I spotted that too
>>65233049>not from an actual legal onealright, if you want to split hairs to that extent, the rule is that you may not use incendiaries on enemy combatants UNLESS they are fortified or entrenched in such a way that no other weapon is feasiblein the above video that is far from the case, those flimsy hovels are shown being penetrated by drone-dropped explosives
>>65233039>using it on people with the intent of inflicting casualties isNo, it isn't.Now they might be violating the "in proximity to civilians" clause depending on how that WP is delivered but that one tends to be a bit flexible anyway
>>65233050>no*yeswe've done it multiple times, because its not a warcrime
>>65233039>>65233035 (Me)Yeah, I think it was around the first response where the sense of sarcasm faded off and things went a bit downhill. Mine still stands that "potential warcrimes" are not "warcrimes" inherently (coupled with an irrational personal bugbear about the sheer percentage of humanity that doesn't understand the difference between "warcrime" and mere "war is hell")>>65233046Yes, we can see the body in the courtyard when they enter. We can also see it before, albeit harder to pick out because it's not black. That could potentially play into a desecration charge, but that would most likely be overridden as collateral damage if the smoke itself is justifiable.
Anyone who who want to play warcrimes lawyer would fo well to read the actual treatieshttps://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/conventional-arms/convention-certain-conventional-weapons
>>65233057>UNLESS they are fortified or entrenched in such a way that no other weapon is feasibleNo actual convention regulates that. It's nothing more than a norm of international conflict and is internally regulated by militaries themselves, but there is no convention that demands that rule (Rule 85 of customary IHL) to be followed.This rule was specifically left out of the convention on certain conventional weapons, because many parties opposed it. Pakistan is under no compulsion to not use incendiary weapons on its enemies.There are conventions that ban causing unnecessary suffering on combatants, meaning there are more feasible means of achieving their incapacitation, but burning someone alive in direct urban conflict is not applicable. The "feasibility" in terms of these conventions always includes the important notion of not placing yourself at any unnecessary risk: If someone is in a hole or a house and you can't, as a well-meaning, ordinary individual, see a way of killing them without placing yourself at risk, it's acceptable to burn them out. No convention or regulation will demand you place yourself at serious risk of life and limb, as then far fewer individuals would follow them.
>>65232976what do you call this genre of music? kinda cool
>>65233078Contemporary Worship (Muslim)
>>65233077>No actual convention regulates that1899 Hague Convention, Art 23e: "To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury"customary interpretation is that this means not to use incendiaries on enemy combatants unless etc>burning someone alive in direct urban conflict is not applicableyou'll have to rationalise and prove why, instead of just making a bald statement like that.>If someone is in a hole or a house and you can't, as a well-meaning, ordinary individual, see a way of killing them without placing yourself at risk, it's acceptable to burn them out. No convention or regulation will demand you place yourself at serious risk of life and limb, as then far fewer individuals would follow themI agreehowever, in that video, they bombed the structure where they'd cornered the terrorists with an ordinary explosive that penetrated the structure and exploded inside quite effectivelyand it was no fluke, because the previous minute of the video had a few other such instancesso if they had a HE weapon right on hand that evidently did most of the actual killing, very efficiently, what was the justification for using that WP offensively? (which they clearly did)NONE>>65233082lol
>>65233155>customary interpretation is that this means not to use incendiaries on enemy combatants unless etcBut the "unless" is not defined except by militaries themselves in internal regulations.If you as a soldier can reasonably justify and represent your case for the use of the weapon, no violation will be seen as having happened. Something as simple as you thinking you were going to die if you didn't do it is a feasible explanation.>you'll have to rationalise and prove why, instead of just making a bald statement like that.Other way around. The people making the accusation have to prove the violation of the convention, showcasing the perpetrator's intent and malice. The intent of the conventions is to maximize the amount of people and nations following them, which inherently means they have to allow for human conditions and motivations in their interpretation.This means that their enforcement is very forgiving in terms of people just trying to survive and do their best. Aside from high-ranking officers and the like. They'll get unfairly shafted.>what was the justification for using that WP offensively"I would have died if I went in there, even after those mortars. I just know it.">NONEA couple seconds earlier they show intense fire being exchanged in that compound, AFTER the roof has been holed by explosives. A few seconds after the WP they show their own troops retrieving bodies with smoke in the air coming from off-camera, indicating an active enemy presence and need for obscuration.It's very easy to justify the use of the WP in this situation under the 1899 Hague convention. Especially since WP shells are used for obscuration and so don't count as incendiary weapons by themselves, even if we assume a drone-WP drop counts as one.
>>65233165>the "unless" is not definedit's implied by the purposeful omission of the use of incendiary weapons from those tactics which are categorically banned.>If you as a soldier can reasonably justify and represent your case for the use of the weapon, no violation will be seen as having happenedyes, but now this is a matter of presenting the evidence in court as opposed to a summary judgementthat is, the law allows you to present a justification, as opposed to e.g. ambushing the enemy while wearing Red Cross ID which is summarily banned>Other way around. The people making the accusation have to prove the violation of the convention, showcasing the perpetrator's intent and maliceAlready done. In this case,Accusation: the Pakis used WP in an excessive manner to inflict unnecessary suffering when they could have used HEProof: this video which shows that they used HE simultaneously, and on a flimsy unfortified house, under which circumstances WP was wholly unnecessarynow you have to respond to this accusation and the proof providedin a trial, both the prosecution AND the defence must present evidence and reasoningthe defence can't just sit there and say "nuh uh not applicable" and walk outfurthermore, you were arguing a broad principle of law:>burning someone alive in direct urban conflict is not applicableinstead of this specific caseyou cannot inductively generalise this broad principle merely by discussing the circumstances specific to this 1 incident>indicating an active enemy presence and need for obscurationthey could and should have just bombed the building until the Taliban stopped firing backand then made the assault using non-incendiary flashbangs or offensive grenades>Especially since WP shells are used for obscuration and so don't count as incendiary weaponsuse of these weapons are not based on what they are designed for, but how they are used
>>65232988Obviously you didn't see the body with his standard issue battle-tested Taliban military flip flops>>65233011Right after the phosphorus clip they add "burned" Taliban to the casualty count.Not that anyone really cares about war crimes anymore, you can thank Israel.
>>65233193>you can thankthe Pakis, Pallywoods, 2 billion mudslimes, jeets, vatnigs, regular nigs, and chinks because they all hyped up every single bomb dropped by the West and Israel as a "warcrime"and it has now worked exactly as intended, muddying the waters enough to create an effective repeal of 20th-century Western-based international humanitarian law
>>65233180>Accusation: the Pakis used WP in an excessive manner to inflict unnecessary suffering when they could have used HECounter-argument: WP is not an incendiary weapon.Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons specifically defines incendiary weapons as such:>(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:>(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, SMOKE or signalling systems;As I'm sure you are aware, WP shells are smoke shells.>Proof: this video which shows that they used HE simultaneously, Which is shown to not be effective as there is an ongoing intense firefight. The use of WP happens after that use of high explosives.>and on a flimsy unfortified house, Conjecture.>under which circumstances WP was wholly unnecessaryWhy was it wholly unnecessary? You have not offered any valid argumentation for this. The simple fact that the high explosives used did not incapacitate the enemy is already a valid enough reason to use incendiary weapons, which WP isn't even one of. It's not feasible to demand soldiers to sit around and throw ineffective HE. >and then made the assault using non-incendiary flashbangsOk. I'll stop replying in this post. You're an actual child lmao.>use of these weapons are not based on what they are designed for, but how they are usedPerfectly false. I repeat and add:>1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances. (b) Incendiary weapons do not include:>(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, SMOKE or signalling systems;
>>65233204>WP is not an incendiary weaponthe article I cited above is an injunction against "inflicting unnecessary suffering", regardless of the weapon used>The use of WP happens after that use of high explosives>there is an ongoing intense firefightConjecture; the firefight happened before both the HE drop and the WP drop>Conjecturethe video itself showed that this is hardly a fortified bunker, let alone up to most European building codes> It's not feasible to demand soldiers to sit around and throw ineffective HEoh well if you want to take the defence that a Paki infantry division doesn't have access to munitions capable of demolishing a bog-standard (literally) single-storey hovel, go aheadstill doesn't justify the principle really>Perfectly falseyeah, try arguing that you were justified in torturing someone because you were using medical hypodermics, which are not designed as torture devices>You're an actual child lmaobetter that than a filthy shitskin like you
>>65232976regular mowing of the rodents.Why the mindless zombie music
>>65234405>Why the mindless zombie musicaka typical modern muslim music
>>65233204>. It's not feasible to demand soldiers to sit around and throw ineffective HE.this is how chemical weapons were deployed in the first place hurr durr
>>65232976Holy shit, Pakistan has much better drone tech than USA now
>>65234464It's good if you although nothing wrong with the original format
>>65233001my war reffies :)
>>65234488Yeah I guess that's reasonable
>>65233002Enemy can't see if you drop smoke directly on top of them.
>>65232988>Pakistani Army>Pakistani TalibanTechnically not a warcrime, domestic terrorism and insurgency falls under the realm of law enforcement, meaning the engagement would be subject to Pakistani law specifically.
>>65235667nopeinsurgent terrorists are protected under international rules of waryeah I'm not sure that's a great thing either but it is what it is>>65235660>I was only anaesthesising the patient with a clawhammer, it's a medical procedure
>>65235670>I was only anaesthesising the patient with a clawhammer, it's a medical procedureHe out cold, ain't he?
>>65235676Red Cross guidelines call for a rubber mallet at bestthe wooden mallet test case is still going through the UN ICJ
>>65233022Unless you are Russian
Mud huts clad with solar panels have a certain charm to it, looks like something out of a post-apocalyptic setting.
>>65233155>customary interpretation is that this means not to use incendiaries on enemy combatantsThis is blatantly false, incendiary and WP use on enemy combatants has never been restricted when away from civilian populations. US field manuals (and Soviet) very much allow and suggest the use of WP and formerly napalm on enemy personnel
>>65235924follow the rest of the thread>>65235910it rather does, nice spot
>>65235947There is nothing to gain from reading a discussion with false premises
>>65235964indeed, so if you continue to cling to your false premises, there's no point readinggo away
>>65235969I see that you are retarded, or are you perhaps a leftist? I implore you to find someone prohibiting incendiary use on enemy personnel.
>>65235973Apology accepted.
>>65233001sir that's "illumination"
>>65233046Anon, we're all a little burnt inside.
>>65235987All suffering is necessary.
>>65236322*Saar that's illumination saar!
ah yes, Talibans long standing tradition of retreating into a compound that then gets blown up
>>65233039>dropping WP directly on enemy soldiers with intent to burn them aliveincendiary weapon, not a war crime>dropping WP near enemy soldiers with intent to block their vision with the smokeobscurant, not a war crime>dropping WP near enemy soldiers with intent to poison them with the smokechemical weapon, war crimeAs you can guess, it's very difficult to prove intent unless the man giving the order outright says that he wants to poison them.
>>65239734>it's very difficult to prove intentwhich is why the proof of intent in courts for e.g. murder and so on is not wholly reliant on> the man giving the order outright says that he wants to poison them
>>65239740Military courts are a little different because killing people is an expected outcome. The question is did you kill them the right way.
>>65232976bit weird seeing Pakis using GWOT tactics
