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 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] teft@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] pheet@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What weapon was it? US made weapons, even with shaped charges, are incendiary. It's in the field manual and training. I don't know what to say beyond this. There hasn't been a court case around it to my knowledge so there is no precedent set.

[–] pheet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Did you read my link?

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

... Yes have you read the training manuals for US weapons such as the AT4?

[–] pheet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

It's irrelevant since, as in the link:

Protocol III states though that incendiary weapons do not include: ... Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armor-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.

Having an incendiary mechanism doesn't mean it is an incendiary weapon in the sense of your quote of Section 6.2 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin.

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes, which is why the target of the usage of the weapon matters. Was the target in the video an armoured vehicle, aircraft and installations or facility?

[–] pheet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 years ago

Exactly why it doesn't matter, it's not an incendiary weapon meant to target ppl in the incendiary way, thus it's not seen as bad of a thing as an incendiary weapon. To put it in other way: that person didn't feel the horrible (and longer) incendiary effect because of the other effects of the weapon. Does it really matter if the person is outside or inside of an armoured vehicle? The actual incendiary weapons are whole different thing.