Welcome, Guest. Please Login
SLINGING.ORG
 
Home Help Search Login


Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
civil unrest (Read 10095 times)
Smudge
Senior Member
****
Offline


Sticks and stones WILL
brake your bones.

Posts: 334
everywhere
Gender: male
Re: civil unrest
Reply #15 - Sep 15th, 2005 at 9:02pm
 
Wow, I am shocked.  We can't shoot a military insurgent with a .50 cal rifle but it is perfectly fine to turn them into hamburger with a 20mm chaingun on a helicopter or an M-2 machine-gun Roll Eyes.  Besides, who really follows the geneva convention? Wink


P.S. How many houses are there in the mountains of Afganistan?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Smudge
Senior Member
****
Offline


Sticks and stones WILL
brake your bones.

Posts: 334
everywhere
Gender: male
Re: civil unrest
Reply #16 - Sep 15th, 2005 at 9:33pm
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Machine_gun

(Just some interesting reading).
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dale
Interfector Viris Spurii
*****
Offline



Posts: 1581
California, USA
Gender: male
Re: civil unrest
Reply #17 - Sep 16th, 2005 at 4:12pm
 
I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever been a soldier.  So I have never studied the Geneva Conventions.  However, I just tried to quickly look at them on the Web.  There are four Conventions, last amended in 1949.  Then there are two additional Protocols added in 1977.  Then ... they had to cut down a FOREST to make the paper to print all the additional conventions and protocols and specific prohibitions and exceptions.  Like, you can't use a laser specifically to blind someone (if he gets blinded while he's being burned in half, tough luck).  You can't use bullets that expand or flatten on entry, they cause unnecessary injury and suffering.  Likewise any explosive or incendiary munition weighing less than about a pound (400 grams, to be precise).

But I did not see anything specifically prohibiting (or even mentioning) any particular calibre of bullet.  Nor did I find anything prohibiting use of any projectile (except the aforementioned dum-dums) against people (soldiers).

I did find an
article by a former Air Force member
, who says he studied the Conventions, instructed others concerning them, and acted in accord with them as part of his duties as a fire control officer in Iraq.  He states that the idea that the Conventions prohibit use of .50-calibre weapons against people, is a long-standing and widely-spread rumor, and that the Conventions contain no such prohibition.  His article also dispels several other misconceptions about military terms such as "free-fire area" and explains what they actually mean.

So.  That's two sources: my own (admittedly cursory) research, and someone who does know the Conventions in detail.  Standard disclaimer about double-checking anything you find on the Web, applies here of course.  That's why I looked up the Conventions myself.

BTW, I also ran into an anecdote about Marine Corps training, where the soldiers are told that the Geneva Conventions prohibit using a .50 on people, .50's are for equipment, and for those who are wondering, helmets and uniforms are equipment.  This story also appears aprocryphal.
Back to top
 

No, I don't live in a glass house.&&&&"If builders built buildings the way programmers write programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization."&&&&Context matters!  "Nothing but net" is a BAD thing in tennis...
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Yahweh Bless you in Yeshua
Interfector Viris Spurii
*****
Offline


Matthew 11:25-30

Posts: 1700
Gender: male
Re: civil unrest
Reply #18 - Sep 16th, 2005 at 4:35pm
 
War is hell. 

Which, by obvious implication, includes the use of whatever is available either to defend or offend, regardless of what is written.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2004/01/284087.mpg

Peace,

TS
Back to top
 

Blessings in Yeshua!&&
 
IP Logged
 
Matt_C
Funditor
****
Offline


Cruachan!!!

Posts: 736
Cheshire, England
Gender: male
Re: civil unrest
Reply #19 - Sep 16th, 2005 at 5:32pm
 
Any attempt to put restraints on war will fail. It is probably a either a misunderstanding about control, or an attempt to construe some kind of authority that lead to the Geneva conventions. Trying to enunciate clearly the fairest way of committing to total chaos and disorder just doesn't make sense in my book.
Everyone knows an atrocity when they see one, no matter from where it was, and leaders that have committed such acts have always been villianized or dealt with by direct influence or history.
What is written won't stop a man from doing awful things when he is put in a situation where he has control over the enemy, or the means to get that control (IE, a .50 BMG sniper round).
Anyway, back onto the technicalities of it. I don't see what is so inhumane. I once read that if you get hit anywhere in the upper body by one of those rounds, your heart is likely to stop due to the shockwave.
Back to top
 

The last time I saw a rainbow I threw my beard over it
 
IP Logged
 
ben_banned
Interfector Viris Spurii
*****
Offline



Posts: 1272
Gender: male
Re: civil unrest
Reply #20 - Sep 16th, 2005 at 6:00pm
 
like i said before. How many innocent peoples walls do you think a shot would fly through before it stopped?
Back to top
 

zero tolerance=zero intelligence
 
IP Logged
 
ben_banned
Interfector Viris Spurii
*****
Offline



Posts: 1272
Gender: male
Re: civil unrest
Reply #21 - Sep 16th, 2005 at 6:13pm
 
Back to top
 

zero tolerance=zero intelligence
 
IP Logged
 
Smudge
Senior Member
****
Offline


Sticks and stones WILL
brake your bones.

Posts: 334
everywhere
Gender: male
Re: civil unrest
Reply #22 - Sep 16th, 2005 at 9:30pm
 
There aren't many houses in the mountains of Afghanistan and an American sniper with a .50 cal won't do nearly as much damage as a heavy machine gun would.  Plus, snipers are not used in the urban regions of Iraq.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
ben_banned
Interfector Viris Spurii
*****
Offline



Posts: 1272
Gender: male
Re: civil unrest
Reply #23 - Sep 16th, 2005 at 10:48pm
 
actually they definately are
Back to top
 

zero tolerance=zero intelligence
 
IP Logged
 
Smudge
Senior Member
****
Offline


Sticks and stones WILL
brake your bones.

Posts: 334
everywhere
Gender: male
Re: civil unrest
Reply #24 - Sep 16th, 2005 at 11:20pm
 
You're full of it (just kidding). Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
ben_banned
Interfector Viris Spurii
*****
Offline



Posts: 1272
Gender: male
Re: civil unrest
Reply #25 - Sep 17th, 2005 at 11:01am
 
Back to top
 

zero tolerance=zero intelligence
 
IP Logged
 
Smudge
Senior Member
****
Offline


Sticks and stones WILL
brake your bones.

Posts: 334
everywhere
Gender: male
Re: civil unrest
Reply #26 - Sep 17th, 2005 at 3:20pm
 
Ben_banned, I can see our problem of communication.  The media and everyone today loves to call anybody that aims a weapon at another person a sniper.  This is not the case.  A true sniper is someone who is out in the wild and killing targets at 500+ yards.  These urban soldiers are actually "precision marksmen".  The police forces use them as does the military.  Their longest shot may be only 150 yards and sometimes they don't even need scopes.  Also in cities like Fallujah, when any person might be a terrorist, I think that the military would be less worried about a large bullet traveling through an old building than letting a suicide bomber kill 20 or so people.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
ben_banned
Interfector Viris Spurii
*****
Offline



Posts: 1272
Gender: male
Re: civil unrest
Reply #27 - Sep 17th, 2005 at 4:30pm
 
Back to top
 

zero tolerance=zero intelligence
 
IP Logged
 
Smudge
Senior Member
****
Offline


Sticks and stones WILL
brake your bones.

Posts: 334
everywhere
Gender: male
Re: civil unrest
Reply #28 - Sep 17th, 2005 at 10:31pm
 
Like I said, my definition of a sniper is not the loose term that people apply it to today.  Any nut can shoot a person in the city with a handgun from a concealed place, but would you call them a sniper?    
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Smudge
Senior Member
****
Offline


Sticks and stones WILL
brake your bones.

Posts: 334
everywhere
Gender: male
Re: civil unrest
Reply #29 - Sep 17th, 2005 at 10:35pm
 
Sniper versus Sharpshooter or Marksman

Some doctrines distinguish a "sniper" from a "sharpshooter" or "designated marksman". While snipers are intensively trained to master field craft and camouflage, these skills are not required for sharpshooters. Snipers often perform valuable reconnaissance and have a psychological impact on the enemy. A sharpshooter's role is mainly to extend the reach of the squad to which he is attached.

These differences in role and training affect doctrines and equipment.

Snipers rely almost exclusively on stealthy bolt-action rifles while a sharpshooter can effectively utilize a faster-firing, but more conspicuous semi-automatic rifle. In some military doctrines, a two-man sniper team consists of a designated marksman who uses a bolt-action rifle, and a sniper support (usually the spotter) who uses a semiautomatic sniper rifle, or at times an assault rifle or carbine.

A sniper's intensive training, forward placement and surveillance duties make the role more strategic than a squad-level sharpshooter. Thus, sharpshooters are often attached at the squad level while snipers are often attached at higher levels such as battalion.




-I pulled this off of Answers.com
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Bill Skinner, Masiakasaurus, Rat Man, Mauro Fiorentini, Curious Aardvark, David Morningstar, Chris)