←back to thread

Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

(twitter.com)
1061 points danso | 1 comments | 29 May 20 07:24 UTC | HN request time: 0.216s | source
Show context
082349872349872 ◴[29 May 20 08:21 UTC] No.23347585[source]▶
One can also check easily-discoverable recent US military policy https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23347453 to discover that those who think these things through don't condone "looting ⊃ shooting".

Bonaparte was a fan of the "whiff of grape" https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_royaliste_du_13_v... but we all know how that ended.

replies(2): >>23353810 #>>23356356 #
meheleventyone ◴[29 May 20 18:36 UTC] No.23353810[source]▶
Isn't it a long standing thing that the US Military use of force rules in warzones are generally more restrictive than the policies for use on their fellow citizens by police back home?
replies(4): >>23354313 #>>23354337 #>>23354810 #>>23354914 #
dmoy ◴[29 May 20 19:17 UTC] No.23354337[source]▶
Yes

One obvious example of this is simply ammo. Military bullets don't expand as much as bullets available to cops or civilians. A military bullet is explicitly not allowed to be an expanding hollow point which really messes you up.

There are all sorts of international agreements on not using certain types of things in war - types of bullets are no exception.

replies(4): >>23354556 #>>23354605 #>>23354614 #>>23364027 #
1. bertil ◴[30 May 20 19:49 UTC] No.23364027[source]▶
My understanding was that hollow point bullets allow the shooter to hurt someone without risking the lives of the people behind them. Not hurting “people just behind [your enemy]” is presumably less a concern in a war zone (than in a civilian setting) because they are presumed brothers in arms.

Did I understand that right?