Look at the pretty lights

a reply to: alldaylong

Not uncomfortable at all as Im not a proponent of russia.

Why is it uncomfortable for you to admit to ukraines genocide prior to february?

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Lazarus Short

no one has yet declared "war," so still no war crime has been committed.

It comes under the heading " State Terrorism "

You left out the word "sponsored."

No i didn't.

Russia do their own sponsoring.

Fool

No help from China then?

How about Ukraines genocide? Sponsors?

Russia didn't need help from anyone when they invaded Ukraine in 2014. Try and keep up.

Aww, its cute the way you dance around what many already know but you didnt answer.

Ukraine needed help overthrowing its govt prior to the annexation of Crimea. Then needed more help when their slaughter of their own countrymen came around to repercussions.

We are actually talking Russia being the State Of Terror old chap.

Uncomfortable for you i know.

I think its far past time that people are so polorized on this issue and need to look at things for what they are

Was it wrong what russia did? Absolutely
Did ukraine have the right to retaliate with the full might they could muster? Absolutely

But there is no doubt there is propaganda coming from BOTH of these countries on whats going on, hell who do you think the Ukrainians learned from in that regard?

I am supremely skeptical of ANYTHING that comes out of either one of these countries until it can be verified thoroughly

We DO KNOW that whether its systemic in Ukraine or whether its just some rogue units, that they HAVE committed war crimes, just as Russia has

Ukraine is only an innocent party in terms of them being invaded and having the right to fight to save their country, they have to not fall into that trap of comitting war crimes

Trust me I KNOW it can be hard, I watched on 2 dif occasions friends get hit with planted explosives, when we finally were able to detain the people responsible it took everything I had not to put a bullet in their heads and just throw them into the burn pile, I wont lie about that.

And when one of my buddies was a victim of Green on blue in Afghanistan? ALL of us wanted to just wipe them out, the trust was gone.

It takes brave people to fight in war, but it takes almost Super Human effort to not fall into the hell that is revenge and to what FEELS justified, even though maybe sometimes it is.

Anyway I wont ramble on, I just wish we could all stop being so polarized on things like this and JUST look at facts and operate off that over emotion

Im not bashing or chastising you at all, I get it, and ive known you for a lot of years I know youre a good person as are Most here on ATS so please dont take me wrong

There some confusion over where this actually happened. Some say it's in Donetsk. a reply to: Daalder

a reply to: JinMI

Im not a proponent of russia.

Would you care to link one of your previous posts where you have actually comdemned Russia's actions ? If you can then i will withdraw my comment.

ukraines genocide prior to february?

That is a huge claim you are making. Would you care to provide evidence for that ? Because Russia says it happened doesn't make it true. In fact 99% of what Russia claims the opposite is true.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: marceldp1

Weapons like this are designed to set fires on the ground. It's burning around 4,000 degrees, so if enough lands on something flammable it ignites it. It's basically a terror weapon.

Would this have a legal use anywhere in combat (i.e if it wasn't used over civillian areas as in this major war crime)? Not heard of this before but seems to break every rule of geneva convention and humanitarian law.

SPAM

a reply to: bastion

Technically it's not banned. It's frequently used to destroy artillery, although usually by placing it in the barrels and igniting it. But it's not banned under any convention.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bastion

Technically it's not banned. It's frequently used to destroy artillery, although usually by placing it in the barrels and igniting it. But it's not banned under any convention.

Geneva convention:

Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons prohibits, in all circumstances, making the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by 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 a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. The protocol also prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against military targets within a concentration of civilians, and limits the use of incendiary weapons delivered by other means. Forest and other plants may not be a target unless they are used to conceal combatants or other military objectives.[2][9] Protocol III lists certain munition types like smoke shells which only have a secondary or additional incendiary effect; these munition types are not considered to be incendiary weapons.[10]

It is banned against civilians, but technically I guess sure if you want to torch things otherwise that's fine.

a reply to: merka

Banned against use on civilian targets, not banned in general. There’s a difference. No convention bans the use of termite weapons. Only against certain targets.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: merka

Banned against use on civilian targets, not banned in general. There’sa huge difference.

Is there really such a huge difference? You could also say banned in general with exceptions. I mean what we see in the clip is even banned against military targets in many of the situations they will be in, around civilian populations (ie cities, towns).

But granted, technically correct. Nothing is truly banned when states use such weapons without penalties anyway.

a reply to: merka

Yes, there is a huge difference. Anti-Personnel land mines are banned completely. Thermite is banned from use on civilian targets, as are most weapons. Those bans are designed to minimize civilian casualties. Complete bans on weapons are designed to prevent them from being used in any situation. A complete ban prevents the production, distribution and use of said weapon. Bans on civilian targets don't.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ah I see that you are right, thank you for the correction.

originally posted by: VrilSeeker
a reply to: crayzeed

That is white phosphorous, it's a highly flammable substance. It is banned from use by the UN.

Something the US used multiple times in Iraq

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: TrueAmerican

And the skies light up with war crimes once again in Ukraine. twitter.com... Now I coulda sworn pretty lights like this were banned long ago...

just wait there be someone along claiming that's Ukraine using them and not russia. there was a thread made about it a month or so, maybe further back.

Ya that was over Donetsk though, not Kyiv (edit-if this is in fact Kyiv, the other video from awhile back was confirmed to be Donetsk)

originally posted by: alldaylong

ukraines genocide prior to february?

That is a huge claim you are making. Would you care to provide evidence for that ? Because Russia says it happened doesn't make it true. In fact 99% of what Russia claims the opposite is true.

If you honestly don't know the terror, destruction and death that Poroshenkos Ukraine brought onto the ethnic Russian Ukrainians of Donbass I suggest you dig much deeper to get a better understanding of this war and the reasons for it.

Ukraines President Poroshenko publicly said "our children will go to school, their children can go hide in bomb shelters"

"Their children" refers to the ethnic Russian Ukrainians children that live in Donbass.

I think I'm confused...

I agree this looks more like thermite than it does white phosphorous. To be honest, though, it looks more like fireworks to me than thermite. Thermite is a fairly simple chemical reaction, just highly exothermic and hard to initiate (which is why magnesium is used to ignite it; magnesium burns hot enough to do so).

Thermite, once ignited, burns damn fast. That's why it is self-sustaining... once a handful of reagents ignite, they produce enough heat to ignite every reagent around them. Sizzle, bang, done.

This burnt for several seconds in a spread out configuration. The amount of thermite in one place was likely not enough to create the chain reaction, as that much air intermingled with it would draw off the heat. It might create a few fires, but nothing like a military incendiary attack would be expected to do. If this was thermite launched by the Russians it was a bunch of duds. It ignited too far above the target and spread out too fast.

Napalm would have worked a lot better than this.

I'm going with industrial pyrotechnics.... big fireworks. A lot of show, maybe some fires if a still-burning piece fell upon something easily flammable. But mostly show.

TheRedneck

a reply to: MisguidedAngel

If you honestly don't know the terror, destruction and death that Poroshenkos Ukraine brought onto the ethnic Russian Ukrainians.

Supply factual evidence.

I don't work on gossip. So i challenge you, show me concrete evidence.

Russia has deployed a misinformation campaign as the country invades Ukraine, creating, as the New York Times put it, "an alternate reality where the invasion is justified and Ukrainians are to blame for violence."

www.politifact.com...

Only complete idiots believe anything that Russia has to say.

a reply to: TheRedneck

This wasn’t meant to be something like the fire bombing of Japan. This is more psychological. It was used on the steel plant and the defenders surrendered immediately after. The 9M22S will set vegetation and other flammable things on fire, but won’t ignite buildings.

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
You forget the war crimes committed by the Ukes in the Donbass...for eight years.

Oh, but wait...war had not started, so no war crime, right?

But wait, there's more: no one has yet declared "war," so still no war crime has been committed.

www.google.com...@47.9310176,37.2329584,8z

Google Maps search for "donbass ukraine psychiatric hospital" returns about 20 actual results. And those righteous Ukrainians who would never hold hold people against their will or torture them suddenly "found" these torture chambers and other evidence of torture and they're blaming it all on the Russians. I am sure there are at least a few mental patients who did manage to escape and are just as glad Russia is bombing government buildings etc.

a reply to: Zaphod58

This wasn’t meant to be something like the fire bombing of Japan. This is more psychological.

I agree.

I would not dare to debate you on the rocketry used. If you say it was a 9M22S, I accept that was a 9M22S. That's your forte. I do, however, know thermite... that's getting into my forte. I tried using it once to obtain iron for some of my magnetic work (don't ask how that turned out). Thermite is a loose powder and it must be in a container for it to ignite with any efficiency. Just imagine tossing a handful of sand out the window from a plane at 500 feet and expecting someone to catch any of it... not gonna happen. As soon as it hits atmospheric resistance, it is a dispersing dust field, and thermite is not easily ignited.

The charge must be delivered to a position close to the target more or less intact, then ignited. One simply cannot ignite a cloud of loose thermite dust in the air. That is a physical impossibility. The laws of thermodynamics will not allow it to happen.

What I saw reminded me of burning magnesium bits. That is completely possible, since magnesium is a solid and will not disperse like thermite and once ignited only requires oxygen to burn. That's why i suggested industrial fireworks; magnesium is used quite commonly in fireworks to produce an intense, bright white light. If anyone want to know what burning magnesium looks like, just think of a July 4th sparkler... those are magnesium bits glued to a metal rod.

Magnesium is also used in floral shells, fountains, about anywhere a lot of brilliant while light is desired.

Compared to other incendiaries like white phosphorous and napalm, thermite is by far the most exothermic... absolutely a small amount of "burning" (thermite actually reacts instead of burns) thermite hitting the ground would ignite any vegetation nearby. I wouldn't be surprised if it could indeed ignite buildings. But thermite is also much, much harder to ignite that either of those other incendiaries, hence the need for magnesium, and reacts much more rapidly. White phosphorous and napalm also have an advantage in that they are incredibly hard to extinguish and tend to burn for a relatively long time after ignition. Once thermite completes the reaction, which again is extremely fast, it stops and the only thing to put out is what spontaneously combusted from the heat.

If this were thermite, I would expect to see much fewer but larger actual projectiles igniting much closer to the ground. It looks like simple magnesium to me.

TheRedneck