US-provisioned cluster munitions deployed in Ukraine - normalising brutality.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: MrInquisitive

I don't think that the use of these weapons is justified just because the other side has used them first. We're supposed to hold ourselves to a higher standard, is my point. And no, not a Kremlin mouthpiece, that's just a silly ad hominem.

GEneva conventions allow use of forbidden weapons if the enemy uses them first.

Don't know about that interpretation of the Geneva conventions, but cluster munitions are not outlawed or universally banned. There are 120-130 countries that have signed onto a ban on cluster munitions, but none of them are countries with large ground forces.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

The problem with cluster munitions - and the reason why so many countries have ceased to use them - is that their legacy can persist after the immediate use. This has implications for civilians. Many countries have also stopped using anti-personnel mines too.

Given that Ukraine has provided undertakings that they will use the munitions against Russian forces and document their use for eventual clean up, that is probably good enough, under the circumstances.

Russia have used cluster munitions extensively in this, and previous, conflicts, including across civilian areas. Sadly, many of the die-hard complainers of the US decision to supply Ukraine, seem to have forgotten that fact. They also seem blind to the extensive use of anti-personnel mines, which Russia scatter about like confetti.

After this conflict, mine-clearing operations will likely be ongoing for decades, and civilians will be maimed and killed long after the conflict ends. Russian mines are still killing people in Afghanistan, and that was decades ago.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

I notice i didnt say CLuster bombs in that quote.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: MrInquisitive

I notice i didnt say CLuster bombs in that quote.

You were responding to someone who was talking specifically about cluster munitions, so I assumed you were including them in the context of what you wrote. And my point regarding them stands. However, I did attempt to find out whether your claim was correct or not, i.e. can a country legally use a banned weapon if it is used on them, and found nothing supporting it. Have you actually read something in one of the Geneva Convention treaties that backs up what you wrote, or is it just something you think is or should be the case.

BTW the GC prohibits or restricts the use of a number of conventional weapons, including some sniper rifles, some blade weapons, napalm and flame throwers. It also bans booby traps and incendiary devices, yet some military forces still use them. In other words, these conventions don't have a lot of enforcement power.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

"The use of weapons that are banned by the Geneva Convention is illegal under international law. However, if you are attacked first and you have no other option but to defend yourself with a banned weapon, then you may be able to argue that you acted in self-defense" See you can use banned weapons if you have no other option in self defense.

This Biden administration is absolutely horrific, just like Carter's was. However, the fastest end to this war, is so simple it's stupid. Russian invaders gtfo and go home

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: MrInquisitive

"The use of weapons that are banned by the Geneva Convention is illegal under international law. However, if you are attacked first and you have no other option but to defend yourself with a banned weapon, then you may be able to argue that you acted in self-defense" See you can use banned weapons if you have no other option in self defense.

So you quoted something without citing a source. How about providing a link to this statement? Otherwise it doesn't make for much of a reliable source, does it? Then there is the fact that part of the quote is: "However, if you are attacked first and you have no other option but to defend yourself with a banned weapon, then you may be able to argue that you acted in self-defense". Forgive me for thinking that sounds rather made up on your part. But by all means prove me wrong with a source for this statement. And by a source, I mean something other than some rando's statement in a post in some other forum.

originally posted by: vance
This Biden administration is absolutely horrific, just like Carter's was. However, the fastest end to this war, is so simple it's stupid. Russian invaders gtfo and go home

Never heard Carter's administration being described as horrific. Ineffectual, possibly. Horrific, no. And how exactly is Biden's administration being horrific in its support for Ukraine? By supplying cluster munitions, an item the Russians are have been using for some time? Even you seem to be suggesting the war is Russia's fault, so what has the Biden administration done wrong regarding the war?

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: MrInquisitive

"The use of weapons that are banned by the Geneva Convention is illegal under international law. However, if you are attacked first and you have no other option but to defend yourself with a banned weapon, then you may be able to argue that you acted in self-defense" See you can use banned weapons if you have no other option in self defense.

So you quoted something without citing a source. How about providing a link to this statement? Otherwise it doesn't make for much of a reliable source, does it? Then there is the fact that part of the quote is: "However, if you are attacked first and you have no other option but to defend yourself with a banned weapon, then you may be able to argue that you acted in self-defense". Forgive me for thinking that sounds rather made up on your part. But by all means prove me wrong with a source for this statement. And by a source, I mean something other than some rando's statement in a post in some other forum.

I paraphrased 1 sentence. but if you dont believe it im too lazy to go back and source it. look it up yourself.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: MrInquisitive

"The use of weapons that are banned by the Geneva Convention is illegal under international law. However, if you are attacked first and you have no other option but to defend yourself with a banned weapon, then you may be able to argue that you acted in self-defense" See you can use banned weapons if you have no other option in self defense.

So you quoted something without citing a source. How about providing a link to this statement? Otherwise it doesn't make for much of a reliable source, does it? Then there is the fact that part of the quote is: "However, if you are attacked first and you have no other option but to defend yourself with a banned weapon, then you may be able to argue that you acted in self-defense". Forgive me for thinking that sounds rather made up on your part. But by all means prove me wrong with a source for this statement. And by a source, I mean something other than some rando's statement in a post in some other forum.

I paraphrased 1 sentence. but if you dont believe it im too lazy to go back and source it. look it up yourself.

Uh, you're the one now admitting to making a false quote by supposedly paraphrasing what you wrote as quoted material. As I already mentioned, I did try searching for something to the effect of what you're claiming to be the case, and could not find anything to that effect, which is why I responded to you about it, asking for your source.

If you are now you saying you are too lazy to source your claim under these circumstances, it sure looks like you're making it up. It certainly doesn't do anything for your reputation as far as providing factual information goes.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: MrInquisitive

"The use of weapons that are banned by the Geneva Convention is illegal under international law. However, if you are attacked first and you have no other option but to defend yourself with a banned weapon, then you may be able to argue that you acted in self-defense" See you can use banned weapons if you have no other option in self defense.

So you quoted something without citing a source. How about providing a link to this statement? Otherwise it doesn't make for much of a reliable source, does it? Then there is the fact that part of the quote is: "However, if you are attacked first and you have no other option but to defend yourself with a banned weapon, then you may be able to argue that you acted in self-defense". Forgive me for thinking that sounds rather made up on your part. But by all means prove me wrong with a source for this statement. And by a source, I mean something other than some rando's statement in a post in some other forum.

I paraphrased 1 sentence. but if you dont believe it im too lazy to go back and source it. look it up yourself.

Uh, you're the one now admitting to making a false quote by supposedly paraphrasing what you wrote as quoted material. As I already mentioned, I did try searching for something to the effect of what you're claiming to be the case, and could not find anything to that effect, which is why I responded to you about it, asking for your source.

If you are now you saying you are too lazy to source your claim under these circumstances, it sure looks like you're making it up. It certainly doesn't do anything for your reputation as far as providing factual information goes.

No i used BING ai chat bot and it NEVER gives the same answer twice,so i CANT look it up and neither can you.
Ill give a example. a SHOTGUN is considered a banned weapon to be used on soldiers. Sure you can use them to breach doors,but they are fordbidden to use on soldiers if they are not SLUGS.

Sometimes its YOUR job as a person to look stuff up. its not always on the person you reply to to do so.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: MrInquisitive

"The use of weapons that are banned by the Geneva Convention is illegal under international law. However, if you are attacked first and you have no other option but to defend yourself with a banned weapon, then you may be able to argue that you acted in self-defense" See you can use banned weapons if you have no other option in self defense.

So you quoted something without citing a source. How about providing a link to this statement? Otherwise it doesn't make for much of a reliable source, does it? Then there is the fact that part of the quote is: "However, if you are attacked first and you have no other option but to defend yourself with a banned weapon, then you may be able to argue that you acted in self-defense". Forgive me for thinking that sounds rather made up on your part. But by all means prove me wrong with a source for this statement. And by a source, I mean something other than some rando's statement in a post in some other forum.

I paraphrased 1 sentence. but if you dont believe it im too lazy to go back and source it. look it up yourself.

Uh, you're the one now admitting to making a false quote by supposedly paraphrasing what you wrote as quoted material. As I already mentioned, I did try searching for something to the effect of what you're claiming to be the case, and could not find anything to that effect, which is why I responded to you about it, asking for your source.

If you are now you saying you are too lazy to source your claim under these circumstances, it sure looks like you're making it up. It certainly doesn't do anything for your reputation as far as providing factual information goes.

No i used BING ai chat bot and it NEVER gives the same answer twice,so i CANT look it up and neither can you.
Ill give a example. a SHOTGUN is considered a banned weapon to be used on soldiers. Sure you can use them to breach doors,but they are fordbidden to use on soldiers if they are not SLUGS.

Sometimes its YOUR job as a person to look stuff up. its not always on the person you reply to to do so.

Your using an AI chat bot for a source?!?!?!?!?!? LOL! That's not a source. So in other words you got nuthin'.

We recently asked Microsoft’s new Bing AI “answer engine” about a volunteer combat medic in Ukraine named Rebekah Maciorowski. The search bot, built on the same tech as ChatGPT, said she was dead — and its proof was an article in the Russian propaganda outlet Pravda.

It was wrong. Truth is that she’s very much alive, Maciorowski messaged us last week.

You can trust the answers you get from the chatbot — usually. It’s impressive. But when AI gets it wrong, it can get it really, really wrong. That’s a problem because AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Bing and Google’s new Bard are not the same as a long list of search results. They present themselves as definitive answers, even when they’re just confidently wrong.

We wanted to understand whether the AI was actually good at researching complex questions. So we set up an experiment with Microsoft’s Bing chat, which includes citations for the answers its AI provides. The sources are linked in the text of its response and footnoted along the bottom with a shortened version of their addresses. We asked Bing 47 tough questions, then graded its more than 700 citations by tapping the expertise of 10 fellow Washington Post journalists.

The result: Six in 10 of Bing’s citations were just fine. Three in 10 were merely okay.

And nearly 1 in 10 were inadequate or inaccurate.

The AI bot has picked an answer for you. Here’s how often it’s bad.

As I already wrote, I did look for information on the Geneva Convention, which comports with your claims, and didn't find anything. I also tried searching, using your quoted text, and found absolutely nothing whatsoever.

If you can't provide a source that comes up with the same answer repeatedly, it is obvious that it is not a reliable source. Ideally you would've provided some quoted text from the Geneva Convention on banned weapons. But all you provided was the unconfirmed answer of an IA chatbot.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

Apparently the AI bot has been scrubbed for some reason. I saved the question I asked and it would give me a differet answer than what I remember. It was also CIting the Geneva conventions saying certain weapons are illegal to use,but you cant accept that and thats fine. Just remember one day youll regret speaking down to others.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: MrInquisitive

Apparently the AI bot has been scrubbed for some reason. I saved the question I asked and it would give me a differet answer than what I remember. It was also CIting the Geneva conventions saying certain weapons are illegal to use,but you cant accept that and thats fine. Just remember one day youll regret speaking down to others.

I've tried to be as polite as possible with you over this matter. From the beginning you were reticent to provide anything to back up your claim, which itself was a red flag. I had to pull teeth in multiple posts to get you to fess what to the truth of what you were providing. Not only I but another person as well has pointed out how extremely bogus it is to provide some AI chatbot answer as a source of information to support your argument. I only hope that you learn your lesson regarding what constitutes a legitimate source when making a claim about a matter.

As for speaking down to others, you were the one who started it all off with attitude by saying,

I notice i didnt say CLuster bombs in that quote.

when I replied to your first statement about the Geneva Convention, which was, in turn, a reply to a person who had specifically been talking about cluster munitions. I honestly was only interested in whether or not the Geneva Convention actually makes allowances for using banned weapons if they are first used by an opponent. And the number of post go-arounds I had to go through with you to get you to admit that you had no source other than a AI chatbot was ridiculous. Moreover, you were misrepresenting the matter by falsely putting quote marks around your answer, like it was some actual text from an actual source somewhere. You really shouldn't be surprised that people will be annoyed when they find out that they have been lied to, and that they then won't be respectful to a fault in response.

Interesting that the Ukraine war is one of the few places that cluster munitions can be used without being considered a war crime.

Over 100 countries have signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions, but the USA, Russia, and Ukraine have not.

Let them throw their party I guess? If the USA is sending cluster munitions I guess Russia should double-down and start using even more. Cluster bomb the F out of Ukraine.

Show the entire world why they banned them, except for this handful of lunatics.

a reply to: peskyhumans

"Cluster bomb the F out of Ukraine."

Unbelievable.

originally posted by: peskyhumans
Interesting that the Ukraine war is one of the few places that cluster munitions can be used without being considered a war crime.

Over 100 countries have signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions, but the USA, Russia, and Ukraine have not.

Let them throw their party I guess? If the USA is sending cluster munitions I guess Russia should double-down and start using even more. Cluster bomb the F out of Ukraine.

Show the entire world why they banned them, except for this handful of lunatics.

Most all of the large land force militaries of the world haven't signed onto the cluster munition ban (all except Japan, in fact). If you had followed the rest of this thread, you'd know that.

You don't seemed to be concerned about Russia's employment of both anti-vehicle and anti-personnel mines, and their being spread all over the Dnipro flood plain on account of the dam that was likely destroyed by Russia. You also seem to have a problem with a country defending itself, using whatever artillery ammunition it can get, but you have no problem with Russia using it on the country it has invaded. Seems a double standard on your part.