tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3631707763979783996.post8594900107000113757..comments2023-12-27T05:26:26.321-08:00Comments on the Brindle Brothers: Relax, don't do it: pulling the trigger in Spec Ops: The LineJohn Brindlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02376787263126847036noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3631707763979783996.post-52307394884753304982022-08-17T12:39:11.179-07:002022-08-17T12:39:11.179-07:00Thiss is a great postThiss is a great postTampa Solar Panelshttps://www.solar-specialists.com/us/solar-florida/tampa-solar-panels.shtmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3631707763979783996.post-6739892896581363032014-09-02T08:54:15.840-07:002014-09-02T08:54:15.840-07:00(In additional addition, both the round the mortar...(In additional addition, both the round the mortar in the game can actually fire (M722, a tiny 3.7 pound 60mm smoke projectile which would be incapable of doing anything shown in the game) and the one whose effects are depicted (M825A1, a 102-pound 155mm artillery round) are exempt from the CCCW as smoke rounds whose incendiary effect is incidental. Neither would be effective as an attack round in the way shown in the game, which shows some BS combined effect munition which has submunitions *and* the blanket effects of a dedicated powdered WP incendiary round like M110A1: even M825A1 is useless against armoured vehicles since the WP is impregnated into pieces of felt that tend to bounce off anything solid)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3631707763979783996.post-17976168222898593382014-09-02T08:36:23.094-07:002014-09-02T08:36:23.094-07:00(Indeed, the fact that the CCCW lists incendiaries...(Indeed, the fact that the CCCW lists incendiaries as *conventional* weapons amounts to a direct statement that they are not chemical weapons, which are not conventional weapons)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3631707763979783996.post-68502595690584975912014-09-02T08:30:13.152-07:002014-09-02T08:30:13.152-07:00War crimes are crimes of intent, and are only judg...War crimes are crimes of intent, and are only judged on the basis of the information which could reasonably have been available to the soldier at the time of the incident. Walker had not reason to suspect civilians would be present at a military checkpoint, nor did the 33rd attempt to advise him of such even though they had radio contact with him (nor did they make any effort to move the civilians out of harm's way despite the direction the barrage was creeping in being obvious to anyone with eyes).<br /><br />Secondly, it is legal to use WP against combatants. The CWC and CCCW only apply to scenarios where the poisonous effects of white phosphorus are the primary mechanism of injury (say, gassing people by throwing multiple smoke rounds into an unventilated space). As an incendiary it is completely legal. In addition, the USA never signed the relevant section of the CCCW anyway.<br /><br />Barring a show trial, Walker would have been acquitted of any wrongdoing in that incident. Even his alleged crime of "going off mission" is utterly spurious since the initial mission simply reveals the writer's cluelessness about military intelligence gathering: returning and saying you found one living person would get you arrested for sabotaging your orders: they would need to gather enough information on the survivors to assemble an evacuation plan. Never mind three guys with camelbaks would be dead before they'd even searched the Dubai Mall thoroughly, and that simple sat recon would be able to confirm survivors.<br /><br />Interpretation has no defence against something with complexity and form but no meaning. It is *not* a coincidence that all alleged deep meanings of Spec Ops: The Line come from people who already believed those things to begin with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3631707763979783996.post-1394442852063884512013-03-24T01:24:13.802-07:002013-03-24T01:24:13.802-07:00Great article.
As someone who has no interest in ...Great article.<br /><br />As someone who has no interest in war-shooters, this game provided the perfect experience to have some "shooting fun" but also to be challenged at the same time. The "Oh of course killing is bad" argument seems kinda pointless. For me this game was all about the choices I made and why I made them. In the Lynch mob section I refused to hurt anybody, but couldn't think of a way to get out, so ended up being stoned to death; on reloading I decided to sacrifice one civilian just so that I could get out and "continue the story". Because that's what the game is about - continuing the story; and up to then it had got me so used to shooting and killing that it made me feel as those there was enough blood on my hands already, so one more life wasn't going to tip the scales. Only after looking up the Xbox 360 achievements did I realise that there had been other options - and that's when I really started thinking about how the game was perhaps trying to make me feel like the real-life soldier who will shoot anything to justify the "end-goal", because that's all that they have ever been doing...Warstubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12462907599044043765noreply@blogger.com