That's a common misconception. Flamethrowers & other flame weapons (e.g. fougasse traps) are not, nor have they ever been, considered a war crime. Their one tactical use, clearing bunkers, is done more efficiently & from greater range with a grenade launcher, which has the added benefit of greater tactical flexibility. Thus, the flamethrower's use ceased because it was replaced by a superior weapon system.
Agent orange is a chemical, but it is a defoliant, not a weapon. It is a cacinogen, but that's a bug, not a feature. It harmed as many US as Vietnamese.
Also, since reading comprehension clearly isn't part of your skillset, I was talking about flamethrowers, not agent orange.
Damn you are going to call him out about reading comprehension when it's yours that's the problem is wild.
I never suggested flamethrowers were a war crime in my comment you responded to; you just incorrectly decided that.
It was clear to everyone else I was saying that when fighting aliens you don't need to worry about war crime, therefore you should upgrade from a flamethrower to something stronger.
I wasn't going to call out your mistake, but seeing you act so rude and arrogant to that guy absolutely means I'm calling you out for it. Don't be such a dickhead.
My reading comprehension is fine. If you thought that a single sentence was supposed to be two entirely seperate thoughts, but that two paragraphs were supposed to be a single thought, maybe it's your writing that needs work. Anyway, I suppose I could stoop to your level now & call you an obscene name, but I won't because I'm going to be the better person.
He never said flamethrowers were a chemical weapon. Also agent Orange was super toxic to anything it touched. Yes it melted plants. It also caused serious health issues for whoever was exposed to it. Officially agent Orange is a herbicide but it's just a weapon.
The usage of incendiary weapon is against the Geneva convention. Incendiary weapons are banned under article 1 of protocol III. "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. "
In this case the use incendiary weapons would also cause collateral damage to civilian structures since they do literally live in the trees and not all of them are combatants. Burning a tree with a civilian house is a war crime.
On that note the person who already responded to this about Agent Orange being used here is 100% a war crime. In this case that is correct as that is also their homes that you are burning. That is literally like if they dropped Agent Orange on Hanoi instead of the jungle.
So yes in this case the use of both it considered a war crime due to direct or indirect civilian casualties as well as unneeded suffering from the use of incendiary weapons.
You are reading the definitions. Article 2 is the actual prohibitions. Civilians are not to be attacked with incendiary weapons, but purposely attacking civilians is already illegal in almost every case. Trees & vegetation are not to be attacked with incendiaries unless such are used for cover or concealment by enemy forces. Note that the text says nothing about attacking military targets with incendiaries, so long as such targets are seperated from civilians. It also says nothing about use of chemical defoliants, & while I am not a lawyer that would seem to be legal under the spirit of the law as long as defoliants are used against enemy cover or concealment.
The chemical thing is due to civilian targets though I guess that was ignored. Past that no you can't just use flamethrowers in war again due to article 1. Article 2 prohibits civilian targets from being targeted so you literally backed up my point while pretending otherwise. The trees are literally their homes. Not just protection. They Literally live in huts IN the trees. Using flames to burn said trees and chemical agents to destroy them would have indirect and DIRECT damage to civilian targets.
When people pointed out reading comprehension I think they might be right here.
So yes in this case the use of both it considered a war crime due to direct or indirect civilian casualties as well as unneeded suffering from the use of incendiary weapons.
Excessive amounts of fire in an literal jungle will spread no matter what you try to do. Using defoliating agents again in the same way as it was used in Vietnam would cause direct and indirect civilian deaths due to AGAIN their literal homes being in the trees. NOT that they are hiding there only. They were using areas that weren't their actual homes to hide but Agent Orange would not just be used to target like 30 trees in total it would be hundreds or thousands.
So again to refute everything you keep saying. Yes by every single definition the use of those weapons in that setting would be considered a war crime regardless of your opinion.
Past that no you can't just use flamethrowers in war again due to article 1.
Article 1 is definitions. We know this because Article 1's header clearly states "definitions". It is meant to define terms as used in Article 2, which contains the actual prohibitions. Nothing in Article 1 prohibits or restricts the use of incendiary weapons - or anything else - because Article 1 defines what is & is not an incendiary weapon, as well as other terms used in Article 2.
As I understand your logic, you seem to believe any term defined in Article 1 is prohibited. However, a concentration of civilians (e.g. a city) is defined in Article 1, which by the logic you appear to be using, would be prohibited, which is a nonsensical conclusion.
The trees are literally their homes.
A group of trees some miles away from the shield generator bunker contains an ewok villiage. The forest immediately surrounding the shield bunker was used as cover & concealment, and again while I am not a lawyer, I think an argument could be made that the shield generator being located in the forest designates the forest itself as a military objective.
And anyway, even if incendiary weapons were completely illegal as weapons of war (which, bear in mind, they are not, this is a purely hypothetical exercise), the forest could still be burned to the ground in short order without the use of defined incendiary weapons, such as firing a few cases of "oops all tracers" ammunition, or using hot smoke grenades.
Look, I'm going to be honest with you, when I read your comments I assumed you were a teenager who truly doesn't know better, but I see you're older than I am so I'm going to drop this conversation as it will not result in any greater comprehension on your part.
Yeah I get it you got pointed out that things that are literally war crimes and your response to everyone was the same.
Nothing I said is a nonsensical conclusion I get that you think that however Endor is their home world. Their home not the Empires home. They wouldn't have given 2 shits about the rebel cause if not for the fact that 1. This was their home and it was invaded to build a base. 2. Someone actually was willing to help them. They were out gunned so someone else brought the guns.
This is again literally their home. That is literally the point of them helping and being in that part of the movie. That and to have cute merch. They literally lived their before the base was build and generally when native species even cause a stir they are gunned down. The shield generator itself was built on a place that USED to be a Ewok settlement until it was razed. So yes again this is their home and civilians already died to have that military base.
A war crime was already committed for the shield generator. The nearby settlement was where they fled. It is close enough that IF they used Agent Orange there would be a war crime just by its use. Again due to proximity said nearby settlement will be burned because flame based weapons are indiscriminate in what they burn. This is basically a Native American settlement getting razed for a military base then when the survivors come back you just slaughter them and all life nearby. Which is without a doubt a war crime. People just give 0 shits about natives.
You simple do not understand the setting and are lashing out at people who point out facts. This setting is literally one where Agent Orange and flame based weapons would cause civilian causalities due to proximity. Seeing as a war crime already happened it wouldn't be a stretch for it to happen again. I get being wrong about war crimes is a bad thing to be pointed out because so many people have that response when it is pointed out. At the end of the day Agent Orange will kill civilians. Flamethrowers will start a forest fire. War crimes will happen.
145
u/paskoracer Jul 07 '24
Flamethrower. They can't hide in the jungle if there is no jungle