Based on my and friends' experience, no idea what you are talking about ¯_(ツ)_/¯
pheet
joined 2 years ago
Ihan rapeet hinnat kyllä!
It’s going to be an interesting week in the sense that because of our current situation there will be quite a few wild but nonsensical rumours popping up, at least based on what has already appeared.
Lieron lisäksi oli myös MoleZ, jostain syystä jälkimmäistä tuli pelattua enemmän.
Exactly why it doesn't matter, it's not an incendiary weapon meant to target ppl in the incendiary way, thus it's not seen as bad of a thing as an incendiary weapon. To put it in other way: that person didn't feel the horrible (and longer) incendiary effect because of the other effects of the weapon. Does it really matter if the person is outside or inside of an armoured vehicle? The actual incendiary weapons are whole different thing.
It's irrelevant since, as in the link:
Protocol III states though that incendiary weapons do not include: ... Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armor-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.
Having an incendiary mechanism doesn't mean it is an incendiary weapon in the sense of your quote of Section 6.2 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin.
Did you read my link?
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
Mikä tässä muuten on se tavoite: Lapset aikaisemmin oppimaan vai aikuiset nopeammin takaisin töihin?
I suggest, as a general addition, list of banned sources: (from /r/LiverpoolFC as well)
The s*n, AnfieldHQ, the Daily Mail, WhoScored, Graeme Kelly, IndyKalia, MEN, Don Balon, Dean Coombes, Mootaz Chelade, DavidOCKOP, Oliver Bond, Anfield Express, Team Leaks, TalkSport, Anfield Talk, Anfield Watch, Anfield Edition, LFC Transfer Room, Watch LFC, The Athletic.
I do not know all the specific reasons of each source though, so maybe needs some discussion except for the obvious ones - but it's good to have the obvious ones stated somewhere for e.g. newer supporters. I do trust the /r/LiverpoolFC for vetting these over time, so I don't really have problem to blindly adopting all of them. The Athletic is usually pay-walled and apparently aggressive on copyright issues regarding summaries of their articles.
I would add KopTalk to the list, though I don't know will anyone here would stumble to that anyways, but it has been full of made up rumours in the past, afaik still is.
Sucks but imho deserved - he seemed to give a strong feedback to ref.