compared to regular bombs?
seems on the news they keep talking about how bad barrel bombs are, why are they worse than the kind of bombs we use? please don't say because he bombs civilians, we have too. barrel bombs are no more deadly than the ones we use.......if they hit civilians.
They contain explosives, nails and shrapnel.
They are evil.
They contain explosives, nails and shrapnel.
They are evil.
so bombs without nails and shrapnel are good.
should i assume you think landmines are bad then? or grenades? and therefore believe we use evil weapons also?
lol, set you up didn't i?
They contain explosives, nails and shrapnel.
They are evil.
so bombs without nails and shrapnel are good.
should i assume you think landmines are bad then? or grenades? and therefore believe we use evil weapons also?
lol, set you up didn't i?
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ha ha.
Landmines are particularly evil but a necessary one in the DMZ between South Korea and North Korea.
All weapons are evil but so are many people. Everyone has a moral and legal right to defend themselves. Except of course in countries where the citizens have no rights are not allowed to defend themselves.
Sometimes a little revolution is a good thing.
They contain explosives, nails and shrapnel.
They are evil.
so bombs without nails and shrapnel are good.
should i assume you think landmines are bad then? or grenades? and therefore believe we use evil weapons also?
lol, set you up didn't i?
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ha ha.
Landmines are particularly evil but a necessary one in the DMZ between South Korea and North Korea.
All weapons are evil but so are many people. Everyone has a moral and legal right to defend themselves. Except of course in countries where the citizens have no rights are not allowed to defend themselves.
Sometimes a little revolution is a good thing.
bombs be bombs my friend
there is no level to which are good or bad or whose bombs are more moral.
It's tricky trying to make rules for war. War is hell and often all the parties involved aren't concerned about rules or violating law.
I do not think that barrel bombs are banned by the UN, some stories indicate they are, but from what I've found they have just been "condemned". Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong.
and i don't know for sure......but nuclear weapons (bombs) are not banned either.
This was interesting
Barrel bomb
Regulation
Home » Glossary » Barrel bomb
There is no authoritative definition of a barrel bomb under international law. In common parlance the term refers to an improvised container (e.g. an oil drum or gas cylinder) dropped from an aircraft and filled with explosive, incendiary or other substances and often additional materials to increase fragment projection.
Barrel bombs are not specifically prohibited under international law. Like other improvised weapons, these 'flying IEDs' are not made to exact specifications and differ in shape, size, composition, and fuzing mechanism, and, thus, also in their effects. Certain barrel bombs may, however, meet the definition of a prohibited weapon under international law. In addition, barrel bombs used as a means of warfare, especially in or near a concentration of civilians, may violate general rules on the conduct of hostilities.
Weapon-specific rules
1980 Protocol II and 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) apply to ‘manually-emplaced munitions and devices’. Air-dropped bombs are excluded from their scope.
Barrel bombs with an incendiary filling may in some cases meet the definition of an incendiary weapon under international law. Use of such barrel bombs for attacks on targets within a concentration of civilians would violate 1980 Protocol III to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the specific prohibition of the Protocol on the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons had, however, not attained customary status in 2005. The Commission on Inquiry on Syria further considered that barrel bombs ‘built as de facto incendiary weapons’ violate ‘rules of international humanitarian law prohibiting the use of weapons that cause superfluous injury, unnecessary suffering or that are indiscriminate by nature’.
Barrel bombs containing toxic chemicals (such as chlorine) can meet the definition of a chemical weapon, prohibited under the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and under customary international law. There have been allegations of Syrian forces using barrel bombs containing chemical agents. In its eighth report (13 August 2014), the Commission of Inquiry on Syria found that reasonable grounds existed to believe that chemical agents, likely chlorine, were used on Kafr Zeita, Al-Tamana’a and Tal Minnis in eight incident and that reasonable grounds existed to believe that those agents were dropped in barrel bombs from government helicopters. The Commission recalled that chlorine gas is a chemical weapon as defined in the CWC, whose use is prohibited in all circumstances under customary IHL and is a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Rules on the conduct of hostilities
More generally, the use of barrel bombs as a means of warfare (i.e. for the conduct of hostilities during an armed conflict) raises concerns under the rule on distinction in attacks. Due to the potentially wide area affected by blast, fragmentation, heat/fire and other effects of barrel bombs and their inaccuracy of delivery (especially when they are dropped from a transport plane or a helicopter without a guidance mechanism), the use of barrel bombs in a populated area bears a high risk of violating the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks and the prohibition on disproportionate attacks.
Several UN Security Council resolutions on Syria mention barrel bombs in connection with concerns about indiscriminate effects. In Resolution 2139 (2014), the Security Council demands that ‘all parties immediately cease … the indiscriminate employment of weapons in populated areas, including shelling and aerial bombardment, such as the use of barrel bombs...’, and Resolution 2165 (2014) expresses ‘grave alarm in particular at the continuing indiscriminate attacks in populated areas, including an intensified campaign of aerial bombings and the use of barrel bombs in Aleppo and other areas’.
The Commission of Inquiry on Syria found that the use of barrel bombs in the context of densely populated areas in Syria amounted to ‘area bombardment’, a form of indiscriminate attack specifically prohibited under IHL.
In light of their inaccuracy of delivery and area effects, barrel bombs have been deemed to be indiscriminate weapons, especially in the context of a populated area. The Commission of Inquiry on Syria has repeatedly called on the Syrian government to ‘halt immediately the use of illegal and indiscriminate weapons, including barrel bombs’. The non-governmental organisation, Human Rights Watch, has described barrel bombs dropped from helicopters into urban areas in Iraq as indiscriminate weapons: ‘The extreme unlikelihood that barrel bombs can be used to accurately target legitimate military objectives in populated areas almost always makes their use indiscriminate and in violation of the laws of war. … Human Rights Watch found that many of the munitions used in these strikes are “dumb bombs,” including barrel bombs and unguided air-dropped bombs that lack guidance systems and so are, like their method of delivery, inherently indiscriminate if used in populated areas.’
Barrel bomb use in populated areas of Syria has also been described as a ‘tactic that spreads terror among the civilian population’. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited under customary IHL. 'Indiscriminate and widespread shelling', and 'the regular bombardment of cities' are cited in practice as amounting to a violation of that rule. In this regard, parallels may be drawn with the case of Dragomir Milošević before the ICTY. Although not directly concerned with barrel-bombs, that case dealt with the use of ‘modified air-bombs’, an improvised, powerful weapon, launched from the ground, into a populated area (Sarajevo). The Tribunal described that weapon as a ‘highly inaccurate and indiscriminate weapon’. The repeated use of that weapon in Sarajevo and the pattern of grave harm caused to the civilian population served as indicators of intent to terrorize the civilian population and were aggravating factors in the sentencing.
Reports of barrel bomb use
Barrel bombs have been used by United States forces in Vietnam in the late 1960s.
The Sri Lankan Air Force reportedly manufactured and used barrel bombs, ‘crude bombs’ dropped from Avro transport planes, in the 1990s. A 1993 report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Commission on the implementation of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief contains an allegation of barrel bomb use in Jaffna (Sri Lanka).
There are reports of barrel bombs being used in attacks by Sudanese forces in the late 1990s and throughout the following decades until recently.
Syrian government forces have been accused of dropping barrel bombs into Syrian towns since 2012. Syrian President Assad has denied use of barrel bombs by Syrian forces.
There have been allegations of Iraqi forces dropping barrel bombs on Fallujah in May and in July 2014. The Iraqi government has denied such use.
In light of their inaccuracy of delivery and area effects, barrel bombs have been deemed to be indiscriminate weapons, especially in the context of a populated area.
sounds like trying to make american "smart" bombs sound more moral. just because we have the technology to be less "indiscriminate " doesn't mean our bombs are more moral.
Regardless of the type of weapon used, all people have the right to defend themselves and their property.
When attacked a person or county must fight back or die.
There are no alternatives.
Regardless of the type of weapon used, all people have the right to defend themselves and their property.
When attacked a person or county must fight back or die.
There are no alternatives.
so you support the use of chemical and nuclear weapons and barrel bombs and landmines....etc? in addition to conventional weapons? got it.
keep digging
i'm just pullin your strings mule....maybe or maybe not you see my point. 
Regardless of the type of weapon used, all people have the right to defend themselves and their property.
When attacked a person or county must fight back or die.
There are no alternatives.
so you support the use of chemical and nuclear weapons and barrel bombs and landmines....etc? in addition to conventional weapons? got it.
keep digging
______________________________________________________________________________
If chemical and nuclear weapons and barrel bombs and landmines are being used against you what would you do?
Go crying to the feckless UN?
Surrender so that you could be killed faster?
Once someone begins to say what they won't do they lose.
We learned that painful lesson with Obama.
Once someone begins to say what they won't do they lose.
We learned that painful lesson with Obama.
This is too easy, lol. "Obama! Winning! Loser! Liberals! Lies! Winning! Failure! Obama!" - every Mule post ever.
They contain explosives, nails and shrapnel.
They are evil.
The components sound like what suicide bombers use in their vests. Amazing that if the military is using them, they are considered okay and legal.
