243
US Killed Children in Iran Using New Missile That Scatters Pellets Explosively (truthout.org)
submitted 6 months ago by [M] to c/news@lemmings.world
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 6 months ago (6 children)

They are designed as anti-material weapons

That is only one of their purposes.

These weapons are designed for use against massed formations of troops and armor or broad targets

You are a whitewasher of war crimes

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago* (5 children)

    Any reason why you couldn't be bothered to read the rest of that sentence, where I talked about their other use as anti-personnel weapons...?

    Or what about my opening sentence where I said that targeting civilians is a war crime, no matter the weapon used?

    You're not a serious person.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago* (4 children)

    You start with: "They are designed as anti-material weapons"
    You did mention personnel, as a side-note at best while they are primarily used and designed against personnel.

    If not whitewashing, it certainly is minimizing.
    As if it's some unfortunate side-effect.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

    They were designed during the Cold War to fight the Soviets.

    The Soviets were primarily a land power and their way of war was mass formation of tanks followed closely by mass formations of troops.

    I understand perfectly well why much the world has signed on to the treaties banning them, but I also know what they were designed to do, and it wasn't to commit war crimes.

    It just so happens, they're awfully good at it, similar to landmines.

    But putting aside that miniature history lesson, my comment was matter of fact. It was not endorsing their use, much less minimizing their impact on civilian populations, which I also called attention to.

    You skimmed a comment, saw what you wanted to see, and then tried to attack me based on your erroneous interpretation of said comment.

    Like I said, you're not a serious person.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I never said they were designed to commit war crimes.
    I also do not believe they were not PRIMARILY designed to make human casualties.
    Not now, not during the cold war.
    The US threw them massively in Vietnam to target only people with light weapons.
    who is going to claim their purpose was to use them against tanks they didn't have?

    Every definition you can read lists humans as targets first and material targets as secondary. Exactly as I put it.
    It's like saying the first bombs using dynamite weren't designed to kill people because that wasn't Nobel's intent.
    You made clear you don't endorse their use, not denying that.
    While you may not have bad intentions you certainly phrased it in a misleading way.
    That is all.
    Bye serious person

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •