I read through a hand full of the articles, and them seemed to describe parachute flares and/or concussion grenades. Concussion grenades are more powerful that most people assume - in fact used incorrectly they can kill.
One of the articles describes a tank shell firing a "sound bomb" - was probably either a training round (i.e. a very low HE content shell), or a concussion grenade fired from the integrated smoke grenade launchers (probably someone hit the wrong switch).
Please consider not re-instating those articles. Wikipedia is fact based, not a place for speculation. As for the general harrassment of civilians - consider putting it on one of the many Israeli occupation related pages.
Please let me know via my talk page (or here) if any of the sources you cited does not describe anything covered above.
P.S. Welcome to wikipedia.
Megapixie 12:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Megapixie 13:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
As I said prevviously - all I care about is (1) whether the behaviour of a flashbang is consistent with the reported behaviour of the light weapon in those articles -- in terms of _duration_ of light effects.
And that (2) the behaviour of a flashbang is consistent with the injuries reported from the sound weapon.
If not, I suggest you allow for the possibility of behaviour beyond the range of those you cover on the grenade page.
Otherwise, writing it off as translation error seems a little hasty. After all, you're ignoring the recorded experience of people in three countries.
So I'm curious as to why are the articles are not considered 'valid' evidence? It is after all the recorded testimony of human beings concerning their experiences and those of their community.
Stephenrbenson 10:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Megapixie 11:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Stephenrbenson 10:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I note there's still no meaningful response to my simple questions about duration.
I'm not gonna repeat myself for a third time on the historical and evidentiary value of witnesses, or ontology and the nature of reality, or engage in pointless crypto-polemic with weapons enthusiasts (sorry, 'recognized experts'). Knock yourself out.
I'm still in no mood to fight this on the narrow patch of defined ground, I just offer the link to demonstrate the use of the terminology by a variety of UN and NGO groups to refer merely to the aggressive use of sonic booms. So it's no longer just the terminology of the victims (which I felt was justification enough).
I'm sure follow up articles will discuss the other techniques used, and apply the terminology I wished to define. In other words, before long you will have to add the entry.
I note also the entry for dirty bomb ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb) which I would have thought would be excluded on the same grounds i.e. it's not a formal weapons technology.
I still have great doubts about the true basis for the original removal of the posts, very reminiscent of the media's use of the word 'balance' to distort coverage of events in the middle east. Stephenrbenson 10:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Stephenrbenson 18:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. The discussion is about political bias disguised as NPOV. Be astonished at how long they have managed to exclude the term.
I've pointed out they have 'dirty bomb' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb), a cognate situation. I just think that if the term is widely used by victims, their victimisers and media, governmental and NGO observers, it should be included. If you search on the term with Google etc, you find a wide variety of material and testimony you won't find by looking up, say, flash-bang or concussion grenade. I assume this is the point.
I also remind you of the major enthusiasm of the one who drove this exclusion (Megapixie) - Israeli military hardware. Stephenrbenson 10:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I read through a hand full of the articles, and them seemed to describe parachute flares and/or concussion grenades. Concussion grenades are more powerful that most people assume - in fact used incorrectly they can kill.
One of the articles describes a tank shell firing a "sound bomb" - was probably either a training round (i.e. a very low HE content shell), or a concussion grenade fired from the integrated smoke grenade launchers (probably someone hit the wrong switch).
Please consider not re-instating those articles. Wikipedia is fact based, not a place for speculation. As for the general harrassment of civilians - consider putting it on one of the many Israeli occupation related pages.
Please let me know via my talk page (or here) if any of the sources you cited does not describe anything covered above.
P.S. Welcome to wikipedia.
Megapixie 12:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Megapixie 13:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
As I said prevviously - all I care about is (1) whether the behaviour of a flashbang is consistent with the reported behaviour of the light weapon in those articles -- in terms of _duration_ of light effects.
And that (2) the behaviour of a flashbang is consistent with the injuries reported from the sound weapon.
If not, I suggest you allow for the possibility of behaviour beyond the range of those you cover on the grenade page.
Otherwise, writing it off as translation error seems a little hasty. After all, you're ignoring the recorded experience of people in three countries.
So I'm curious as to why are the articles are not considered 'valid' evidence? It is after all the recorded testimony of human beings concerning their experiences and those of their community.
Stephenrbenson 10:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Megapixie 11:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Stephenrbenson 10:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I note there's still no meaningful response to my simple questions about duration.
I'm not gonna repeat myself for a third time on the historical and evidentiary value of witnesses, or ontology and the nature of reality, or engage in pointless crypto-polemic with weapons enthusiasts (sorry, 'recognized experts'). Knock yourself out.
I'm still in no mood to fight this on the narrow patch of defined ground, I just offer the link to demonstrate the use of the terminology by a variety of UN and NGO groups to refer merely to the aggressive use of sonic booms. So it's no longer just the terminology of the victims (which I felt was justification enough).
I'm sure follow up articles will discuss the other techniques used, and apply the terminology I wished to define. In other words, before long you will have to add the entry.
I note also the entry for dirty bomb ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb) which I would have thought would be excluded on the same grounds i.e. it's not a formal weapons technology.
I still have great doubts about the true basis for the original removal of the posts, very reminiscent of the media's use of the word 'balance' to distort coverage of events in the middle east. Stephenrbenson 10:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Stephenrbenson 18:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. The discussion is about political bias disguised as NPOV. Be astonished at how long they have managed to exclude the term.
I've pointed out they have 'dirty bomb' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb), a cognate situation. I just think that if the term is widely used by victims, their victimisers and media, governmental and NGO observers, it should be included. If you search on the term with Google etc, you find a wide variety of material and testimony you won't find by looking up, say, flash-bang or concussion grenade. I assume this is the point.
I also remind you of the major enthusiasm of the one who drove this exclusion (Megapixie) - Israeli military hardware. Stephenrbenson 10:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)