maybe he was relaying information or something important like that. ATGM gives you more range than even best sniper and hits on first try
It was the tool they had at the time and one less occupier is better than one unused ATGM.
You aren't wrong. I'm not sure about the context here but using this type of weapon on infantry is normally considered a war crime. I really want to emphasize the lack of context but folks should know.
Edit: do you guys downvote all true things you find inconvenient?
Section 6.2 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin states: “The use of certain conventional weapons, such as … incendiary weapons is prohibited.”
Antitank guns are legal, incendiary weapons such as the above are not. Napalm was made illegal against infantry through this but also antitank industry weapons.
using this type of weapon on infantry is normally considered a war crime
I'm going to need a source on that. Hitting infantry with a missile is....pretty fucking common.
It's not a war crime to use explosives on single soldiers. If it was then a claymore or other mine would be illegal also. This sounds like one of those things soldiers tell each other on the battlefield but isn't true, like 50 cal will rip flesh off a person if you fire it close enough. Or that it's a war crime to use 50 cal on people.
do you guys downvote all true things you find inconvenient?
I think people are downvoting the fact that you are insisting the "...incendiary weapons such as the above...", when the weapon is not in fact an incendiary, also according to UN Convention
Expensive bullet. Apparently more sniper rifles are needed
This really speaks to the abundance of ATGMs in the Ukrainian military right now.
At least he died instantly.
That looked like a laser pointer on a screen. I’m guessing a mine or a lucky shell hit them.
Why waste that on 1 person?
War is wasteful
Sometimes you want to send a message.
maybe he was relaying information or something important like that. ATGM gives you more range than even best sniper and hits on first try
It was the tool they had at the time and one less occupier is better than one unused ATGM.
You aren't wrong. I'm not sure about the context here but using this type of weapon on infantry is normally considered a war crime. I really want to emphasize the lack of context but folks should know.
Edit: do you guys downvote all true things you find inconvenient?
Section 6.2 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin states: “The use of certain conventional weapons, such as … incendiary weapons is prohibited.”
Antitank guns are legal, incendiary weapons such as the above are not. Napalm was made illegal against infantry through this but also antitank industry weapons.
I'm going to need a source on that. Hitting infantry with a missile is....pretty fucking common.
It's not a war crime to use explosives on single soldiers. If it was then a claymore or other mine would be illegal also. This sounds like one of those things soldiers tell each other on the battlefield but isn't true, like 50 cal will rip flesh off a person if you fire it close enough. Or that it's a war crime to use 50 cal on people.
Here is the UN list of war crimes.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml
I think people are downvoting the fact that you are insisting the "...incendiary weapons such as the above...", when the weapon is not in fact an incendiary, also according to UN Convention