What's causing unusual bullet wounds among Gaza protesters? - Polidicks

They wound up being called "war criminals" because that fits with our societal values. They are "criminals" and so we are justified in punishing them. The reality is that they were assholes and so we dealt with them accordingly. WHICH IS OKAY. But don't pretend like there was some real trial. You can't have a real trial under those circumstance. War crimes are bullshit and another in a long line of components that make the average man entirely unable to understand how the rule of law works. Americans especially can't point fingers. We have a law that grants the president unlimited military authority in the event an American is ever brought before the Hague. That includes launching a full blown military assault to recover the person. Americans are immune to the ICC. In general, the US is uncharacteristically intelligent (I assume it is generally a fluke in reality) in how we approach these treaties. We are not a party to the ICC because it is bullshit and a waste of time and resources. We are not a party to the conventions that forbid the use of antipersonnel mines and incendiary weapons because only an idiot would agree to those. We refuse to sign a bunch of restrictions that make zero sense.

Are you saying we're only not-cool with mass murder because it doesn't fit our societal values? Why are you putting the word "criminals" in quotations when discussing men who killed prisoners and unarmed civilians? Men responsible for mass murder of unarmed civilians, and I'm not even talking about the holocaust, is pretty cut and dry in my mind. Definitely criminals. Are you trying to imply that the mass murder on the EF was OK, are you pushing the Clean Wehrmacht myth, or am I just misunderstanding? A lot of the trials during Nuremberg were iffy and complete shams, but not all of them were. ??????????????????? Sure some war crimes are kind of silly, like the ban on expanding munitions. But some stuff like "Don't kill surrendered combatants" or "Don't attack an undefended settlement" or "Collective punishment is bad", doesn't really seem like bullshit or hard to understand. It's some pretty good cut and dry shit man, "If I shoot that prisoner in the head, I will face the consequences for violating the rule of law". Pretty simple. I never said America was perfect man. But for one I didn't write any laws post Hague convention and I'm not the President so I don't think any of that is my fault, or yours either. America burned down Dresden and never saw any repercussions for it, so yea the world ain't perfect but I wouldn't say Nazi Germany facing repercussions for mass murder was an injustice.

I personally don't see the issue with hollow point ammunition, the goal is to stop a threat as quickly as possible and it does exactly that, there are plenty of accounts of people getting hit with numerous FMJ rounds and keeping going for a minute or longer.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. My issue isn't that we have the treaties. I think the treaties are generally a good idea, with a few silly exceptions. My issue is that these aren't actual crimes. Treaties are not laws and do not have the jurisdiction to be treated as such. We pretend that war crimes are actual criminal acts, but that means we are imposing our own rule of law on someone else, except that we aren't actually doing that because we never provide a fair trial in the first place. The proceedings are a pale husk of our real trials that we provide for domestic crimes. I'm not saying we don't commit mass murder because our societal values forbid it, I'm saying we don't flat out execute enemy leaders because our societal values would find that questionable. We have a little parade where we make it look like they get a trial. When in reality we never had the right to put them on trial because we lack jurisdiction to do so. Not that we then magically have to out them go, no, you can just use a military tribunal and call it a day. Don't pretend you have the right to place them on some sham actual trial, it confuses people as to how the law works and cheapens the rule of law.

Because they are extremely inhumane and cause horrifying damage, particularly to those not wearing bullet proof vest?

Basically call personal defense ammunition and all ammo issued to law enforcement are hollowpoints. They aren't inhumane, they are just more effective at stopping the person and have a reduced chance of overpenetrating and hitting an innocent.

Yes, but there's a reason that they're banned in the Hague convention. The chance for them to maim is significantly higher than FMJ rounds (even more so at higher calibers). Getting proper medical attention to someoje in a warzone, doubly one in such shit shape as the Palestinian border, is also far different.

As opposed to 5.56 which tumbles and leaves curved wound channels? Hollowpoints are primarily useful for sidearms, not rifles, if you are talking about an increase in lethality. For rifles they can increase lethality, but they also can stop over penetration, which is useful in the urban combat setting which seems to be pervasive in every modern conflict.

So in response to someone saying that Europeans aren't unconditional supporters the way American are, you take the high patronizing road of saying that's just because they don't know shit and Americans actually get it? Why would Americans understand Israel's situation any better? They don't have any more terrorism than Europe. Your "explanation" of why they support Israel more doesn't make sense, the reasons behind it are most likely ideological and have nothing to do with understanding the practicality of the matter. You're just arbitrarily attributing more thought out motives to them because that makes your side of the argument seem more reasonable. Why should anyone who criticize Israel's actions have to specify that Hamas are bad too? Should I have to say "ISIS is bad" every time I criticize the French government's use of terrorism to push anti-freedom agendas? It's like clockwork, every time Israel does something bad and gets criticized for it, pro-Israel posters get their panties in a twist about us not criticizing Hamas at every corner even when they're not the topic of the thread in the first place. For the last time, no, not explicitly calling an entity out doesn't imply we don't think they share part of the responsibility. But that most of the blame lays on the other side doesn't absolve you from any and all of it, contrary to what you're arguing. You're trying to justify the IDF editing a video to falsely portray a medic as some kind of Hamas sockpuppet by saying "but Hamas does propaganda too", you're trying to justify shooting innocent civilians and not giving a shit by saying that people are unfair about Israel, as if getting your feelings hurt was justification for war crimes. It's pathetic. You rant about tribalism yet are so quick to defend your own tribe with flimsy arguments. And no, us not having solutions at hand doesn't forbid us from pointing out when something is deeply wrong. That's not how this works.

You don't shoot someone with the intent to wound them so it doen't really matter what kind of wound it causes, if anything hollow point is more humane since it increases the chance of them bleeding to death quickly rather than getting stuck with no or poor medical aid and taking hours or even days to die.

Keep in mind the Hague Convention was ratified in the late 1800s, which wasnt an era with good ballistic or medical sciences. Hollow points trade increased penetration by increasing the size of the wound channel. Theyre not designed to maim and dont necessarily maim more than an FMJ or any other bullet of the same caliber. As Garret stated, a 5.56 FMJ is going to be deadlier than a HP of the same size. If Israel is using some variety of .338 ammunition like the article claims, then the difference between HP and FMJ would be absolutely marginal at the distances these snipers are firing from. HPs are really only advantageous for situations where overpenetration is a bad thing. FMJs are better in most other regards. If youd like, I can post a good video that goes in depth about ammunition ballistics made by an ER doctor.

In this specific case the IDF is very clearly intent on wounding people, which is why they are using snipers specifically and aiming at people's legs specifically. Supposedly the idea is to hurt a small group of individuals in a non-lethal way while not hitting everyone else around them.

Right or Wrong Using snipers with lethal munitions to try to wound people is an absolute waste.

Talk about stretching it... I don't see anything about recent history of violence within the US that is in any way similar to the situation in Israel. Funny how you're keen to point out that ISIS is different from Hamas but don't care about how much your have to shoehorn your own arguments in to make them fit. The reasoning you argue for is pretty tenuous and I don't see any evidence for it. You'll have to show me your sources on that. The US is home to the largest nests of evangelical Christians. Their lobbies significantly dwarf Jewish ones, and they heavily support Israel because they think its "reunification" will bring forth the end of times. I can hardly call that "well thought-out". If this isn't ideological, I don't know what is. So in essence we have to suck your guy's dicks a little bit by going on rants about Hamas for you to start caring, because you're jaded and brooding and "life isn't precious" to you. Rad. I already fucking did. Multiple times. Can't you read? There, I'll reiterate for your blind ass: Hamas is a violent group that holds most of the responsibility when it comes to the casualties resulting from the Israel-Palestine conflict. They are a direct hindrance to a durable two-states solution. There, is that enough? Or do I have to say it again at the beginning of every goddamn Israel thread? Do I have to make it my background picture to help your failing memory? So you do understand Europeans' reluctance to support Israel the way Americans do, then? What the fuck was the point of replying to my post in that case? You're just using it as a springboard to soapbox about Euros being irrational and Americans being the well-thought out ones, despite an utter lack of evidence, just so you can take your haughty airs and say you know better than anybody else, demanding that we explicitly condemn Hamas at every turn. Good thing Euros at large aren't doing that, then? Once again, irrelevant to the original post. The burden of proof is on the IDF to provide evidence that this shooting was justified. Until then, it is to be considered murder. Speculating about Hamas' use of abusive terror tactics doesn't change that fact. It's not about it not holding interest to me. You're the one who barges in the thread, brings up an off-topic subject by replying to a post that has no relevance to it, with a post dripping with condescension, and then accuses us of not being open to discussion when you're the one who wants to impose his topic of choice on the conversation. You talk about this forum not being a place where discussion is encouraged, but you're guilty of contributing to that phenomenon yourself. Oddly enough, such displays of bad faith don't exactly entice me to take your preferred topics of discussion into consideration.

Yeah I think the better question here would be “why are protesters getting shot in the first place?”.

Because if one single disguised child Hamas medic terrorist makes it within the geographical borders of Israel, Israel is forever and irrevocably destroyed Better not to take chances eh?

The article covers a very specific topic that the writer is researching as part of his work for a human rights group. You can rest assured his agenda has nothing to do with justifying the IDF's actions.

Is basis human rights such a weird thing though?

In the context of the middle east and Israel? Yes.

Interesting. I didn't know hollow points were illegal for use by governments? Americans buy and use them all the time

In this context, no. It isn't like Facepunch disapproves human rights in the middle east.

Theyre not supposed to be used in the context of warfare due to a hundred year old treaty that was ratified before Israel was even thought if. Theyre not illegal in the US and you should really use them in self defense over FMJs.

Why are they illegal in war? Isn't the point of bullets to kill people? Are hollowpoints more painful? I know that they expanding inside makes it harder to treat as there's more shrapnel to remove, but isn't that kind of the point of warfare?

Hollowpoints aren't illegal. Dom-doms are.

Hollowpoints penetrate less so theyre more likely to wound rather than kill. Dum dums were named specifically in the Hague convention IIRC because they were especially brutal. The Germans wanted buckshot firing shotguns banned because of their efficacy in trench warfare. War is full of seemingly silly rules to try and make the Battlefield more fair and less inhumane.

What's the difference between a hollowpoint and dum dum? The amount of damage done?

Dum dums had the lead core exposed to cause as much fragmentation as possible with an X cut at the tip. HP are about the same but creates an mushroom effect. In warfare they are pretty useless unless you're facing an unarmored opponent since both will bushroom out on ballistic plates.

So, @Cyke lon bee you're saying that wanting Israel to respect basic human rights is a weird opinion? That we should be okay with them violating them? Because I'll be honest, it's pretty fucking retarded.

I think he was saying that basic human rights is a weird concept to middle eastern countries. I hope.

From the article: Under International Humanitarian Law, ammunition that “expands or flattens inside the body” ("Dum dums") is expressly prohibited. There are two types of standard ammunition used with this rifle: M118 and M852, both of which are “Open Tip Match” type bullets (OTM). These bullets have sometimes been marketed as “hollow point” bullets, a designation generally reserved for the prohibited expanding ammunition. However, Open Tip is a deceptive name which actually describes the shape of the bullet, which has a perforated tip. It does not describe the behavior of the bullet, which is not designed to expand or break apart. The OTM design improves the accuracy of the bullet and enables it to maintain a high speed in the air for a longer distance. According to a legal opinion published by the U.S. Army, which uses the same ammunition, the bullet does not expand or easily break apart upon impact and, therefore, does not violate the international prohibition on expanding ammunition. tl;dr not all open tip ("hollow point") ammunition expands or breaks apart on hit. Ammunition that behaves the same as regular bullets (full metal jackets) is not prohibited.