https://wgme.com/news/local/graham-platner-asked-why-black-people-dont-tip-and-referenced-rape-in-old-reddit-posts-social-media-maine-democrats-senate-race-republicans-susan-collins-janet-mills

https://www.advocate.com/politics/graham-platner-homophobic-posts

Most of what I’m saying is that I’ve seen some very superficial/ knee-jerk level responses, but that specifically concerning the reddit comments (for example, Platners question in an Ask Reddit about black people and tipping), I would expect Lemmy/ Lemmings to have a more nuanced understanding of how these kinds of spaces operate. The tipping question in particular is a good example.

And when I see that lack of nuance (as is being demonstrated in this very thread), I have to interpret it as something other than an honest criticism of the content of the critique, because I don’t accept that lemmings individually aren’t capable of understanding that nuance. And so I therefor have to assume its in bad faith, because, here you and I (and others) are, on lemmy. You have to be pretty deep into the internet and these kinds of spaces to end up here.

we need get past this bullshit where people are taken to the mat for somehow being different at an earlier point and place in time.

…

The ink on his celtic (allegedly purity) tattoo that covers up the totenkopf is still wet. He is hopefully still applying ointment every day. If he is in such a different place after just two weeks, who can possibly imagine what he might be doing in a whole month!

Those people are sociopaths or psychopaths who have carried this goal for decades to ensure they are clean as a whistle.

As opposed to nazis who were rocking the totenkopf back in September.

I am a firm believer that people be given a chance to change. I have seen absolutely nothing indicating that the Blackwater merc with a nazi tattoo did. In fact, back in early October he was outright lying about not knowing what his nazi tattoo was.

At best, we are looking at a Fetterman where he’ll say whatever will get him elected, fuck over the country as a republican for six years, and then get a lobbyist gig. And, just a reminder: Fetterman was a piece of shit long before the stroke and it is well documented even on a fucking Anthony Bourdain show.

No. This is just yet another case of a really problematic white man being pushed above everything else and all defenses being “Well, boys will be boys”. Because Women, POC, and LGBTQIA+ folk (among other)… really have no choice. The republican will ALWAYS be worse.

But if you want to suppress votes by running a nazi against fucking susan collins because it is just too hard to finish out the next six months of primary season?

The reality is that he probably IS a good candidate because… Maine is really fucking white and really fucking racist. It’s “Upstate New York: The State”. And… a fucking nazi probably isn’t going to be much worse than collins. But I am not going to shut the fuck up about how “progressives” and “leftists” around the country can’t stop glazing a god damned nazi and what that means for all of their “allies”.

I mean… its a nazi. So more like an entrenching shovel to grind?

And folk wonder why women, people of color, and LGBTQIA+ folk tend to roll their eyes and distance themselves from Online Leftists.

I don’t know how so many keep missing the point here.

Routinely, one weapon system is not authorized for use, when another of lesser explosive yield is authorized for use.

They did not, due to concerns for collateral damage, want to use the higher powered indirect fire option (mortars). So the marines created a way to calculate trajectory for use of a lower powered option (40mm grenades).

Every single conflict in the last 100 years occurred with noncombatants in the theater of conflict. None, I repeat none, hold themselves to the standard of never using a munition is it could harm a civilian at all. We try like hell to avoid it, and you do due diligence to target attackers embedded in civilian infrastructure as precisely as possible.

In the very same deployment, in the very same AO, the same command team did change authorization later for the larger indirect fire munition (mortars). There was no evacuation of civilians. Decisions on what weapon to employ are made based on ground conditions at the time.

Tell me this; what is the standard of when you can use a munition? 90% confidence no civilian casualties? 99%? 99.99999%? If it is 100% no military force could ever fire a shot, so why does this use of force in a calculated way to avoid civilian collateral damage not make the cut but other instances do?

Nah, this is even more fucked.

The US Military actually thought it would be fucked up to throw explosives at those kids. platner and his unit told Uncle Sam to hold their beer while they figured out a way to still throw explosives at children without getting caught.

I assume he put that front and center on his CV when he was applying for a gig at Blackwater.

Alright, so again, I didn’t just randomly google these topics. I was in Iraq at the same time. I was a marine. I am deeply intimately familiar with the system in question. I currently synthesize high explosives. I have participated in ballistics research and high explosives effects research in Aberdeen proving grounds.

I was there, and used the weapon system in question.

That out of the way, here is some nuance.

Marines taking indirect fire were authorized at the time to use indirect fire weapons to suppress that indirect fire. By definition, indirect fire lands on a target you cannot observe. When an infantry rifle squad employs indirect fire from say, a M203, it is because you cannot hit the target with direct fire of a rifle or cannon.

A mk19 is simply a larger version, but the rounds almost universally issued as HEDP. The majority of their utility is in being light armor penetrating because they are constructed with an inverted cone that is base detonated. It sends the majority of its energy into the direct front of the impact in a focused plasma from the explosive detonation in the projectile. It is surprisingly ineffective as an area fragmentation weapon, even when labeled as dual purpose. I watched them get fired at attacking insurgents where the grenades detonated right next to them along a wall and do no damage to anything but the small hole in the wall of that explosive jet. On multiple occasions.

As for employment, we used indirect fire, regularly, in theater against incoming indirect fire. This was done in often, urban environments and cities. Most of all the fighting in the country after the initial invasion weeks occurred inside those cities, because no real point in fighting in open desert for nothing.

So to be very clear, mk19s were employed OFTEN in operations in urban areas, against indirect fires, as indirect fire suppression.

Further still, it is the literal smallest indirect fire weapon option to exist in the arsenal, so you could not be more judicious to respond to incoming fire than the use of a 40mm grenade.

I personally watched firefights where we used them to similar effect though not anywhere near as much advanced planning was used as he described in that Reddit post. Using the marine corps published calculations for trajectories, mapping out impact areas in advance to ensure accuracy to the limits you can within a remote FOB, is the work mortar men do to ensure accurate fire returned.

So if every single incident of returning indirect fire is a war crime, then there are a hell of a lot more war criminals in the military that need prosecution.

To be very clear, we never should have been there fighting in cities in unjust war or inversion, but it is incredibly clever ingenuity that chose the minimal explicit yield possible, with lots of effort specifically to avoid collateral damage when used. The pre-sighting described and calculating trajectories is not the work you spend weeks on if you intend to harm the wrong person.

You can believe no indirect fire weapons should ever be used in cities, and that is a fine enough opinion. You would be saying that in he face of everyday single conflict in the history of warfare in the last 100 years though and all people involved in indirect fire in places not entirely around military occupants as war criminals. Done enough opinion, but that is a vastly different interpretation that what is currently followed as a war crime in ANY modern conflict.