this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
54 points (92.2% liked)

Ukraine

8762 readers
573 users here now

News and discussion related to Ukraine

Matrix Space

Community Rules

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.

🌻🀒No content depicting extreme violence or gore.

πŸ’₯Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title

🚷Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human involved must be flagged NSFW

❗ Server Rules

  1. Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
  2. No racism or other discrimination
  3. No Nazis, QAnon or similar
  4. No porn
  5. No ads or spam (includes charities)
  6. No content against Finnish law

πŸ’³πŸ’₯ Donate to support Ukraine's Defense

πŸ’³βš•οΈβ›‘οΈ Donate to support Humanitarian Aid

πŸͺ– 🫑 Volunteer with the International Legionnaires

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
lisko@sopuli.xyz
doo@sh.itjust.works
Burstar@sopuli.xyz
Tuuktuuk@sopuli.xyz
54
Russian invader fails to outrun an ATGM (streamable.com)
submitted 2 years ago by LaFinlandia@sopuli.xyz to c/ukraine@sopuli.xyz
NSFW 22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 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.