Talk:Thermobaric weapon

Some things should not be shared

As unclean as it makes me feel to suggest suppression of information, but I think the section about "CALCULATIONS" is taking it a bit to far.

You can write about a weapon without telling everybody how build it.

I know this personal opinion, so I leave to the writer to delete that section if he changes his/her mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xigan (talk • contribs) 23:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that, temporarily, during an ongoing War - which could conceivably affect the whole world - this whole subject and anything related which may be considered helpful to the aggressor(s) should be withheld. 2A00:23C4:B841:BE01:FC82:8185:F072:F5D5 (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This is controversial. We live in an age where people genuinely expect to be told where all the nuclear submarines are. We may be reaching a point where the Internet cares less about Official Secrets and other sensitive information than do National Defence and Security agencies.

I am in agreement that such details should be expunged from Wikipedia. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:E0D0:C1C8:4DD9:2169 (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that this dinky little article contains any information tat isn't already available publicly in dozens of sources all over the internet. Expunging this article will make absolutely no difference. Putin isn't trolling Wikipedia looking for weapons information, and if any of his researchers are, it's to plant misinformation, not to find "official secrets". BilCat (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Strange Quote

It read:

"Blust create negative overpressure, enough to have human bodily lifted and thrown."

This was based on a quote from the linked PDF:

"The negative phase results in a reversed-blast wind and causes human targets to be bodily lifted and thrown."

Please add this redirect

Thermobaric explosive
Mentioned in CNN article (surprisingly, Vacuum bomb works).
~ender 2012-11-01 20:03:PM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.197.18 (talk)

Bias Language

The following section appears bias going against NPOV and has several spelling errors.

Language like "Israel has targeted overcrowded urban areas " and “it was not incidental nor accidental" are bias language. The entire paragraph could use an edit and before I go ahead and do it I wanted to discuss. Further, the Islam21c source is questionable.Thanks.

Chavmen (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the Islam21c source discusses 'alleged use' and does not appear to have the capability for fact-checking on the matter. Therefore, it cannot be considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards. Similarly, the Euro-Med source is misrepresented; it is distancing itself from the accuracy of those claims by stating, 'According to the Euro-Med Monitor team in Gaza, Israel appears to be using thermobaric weaponry (vacuum bombs) in its attack, the effects of which are felt by all residents in the vicinity.' The article currently accepts those reports as fact without any attribution, which is against our policy. The Financial Express article also distances itself from presenting the information as factual—it is merely reporting on the same 'Euro-Med Monitor’s team in Gaza reported Israel’s apparent use of thermobaric weaponry, specifically vacuum bombs,' without any fact-checking. In summary, these sources do not verify the content of the paragraph in question. Marokwitz (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for being so thorough. I think a re-write is needed. Anyone else want to contribute? Chavmen (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I feel like we have consensus to remove the paragraph, the sourcing is questionable, the language bias. If no objections I am going to delete the paragraph. Thanks. Chavmen (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - if more reliable sources are found, let's discuss here. Marokwitz (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources are more reliable than the ones you used to about your claim about Hamas. Besides they are reliable. What you're doing is that you're being skeptical and denying what the sources says about it. HM (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

When I wrote "Israel has targeted overcrowded urban areas" and "it was not incidental nor accidental", I wrote it based on what the sources say or imply. The source clearly say that based on factual information. Unless someone argues that Israel didn't use thermobaric bombs on urban areas (specifically on Gaza) or that the only used it once or accidentally, the language is not biased. HM (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, I just added more reliable sources that confirms what I had already written. HM (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi HM, I have checked all your sources and here are my comments:

Eurasian Times states "it appears"

HRW states "it could be"

Euro-Med Monitor states "what appears"

Al Mayadeen and Islam21c are not WP:RSP

I haven't heard of the Financial Express (they aren't on the WP:RSP) but that would require someone senior to advise.

At this stage, the paragraph does not adhere to WP:NPOV and if you want to write a paragraph with Human Rights Watch as a source you will need to re-phrase and attribute to them, something like "...HRW, an NGO...states that the IDF could be using..." Something like that.

At this stage, I will need to revert your edits. Chavmen (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi HM, I appreciate your contributions and understand your perspective. However, it's crucial to adhere to Wikipedia's core policies for maintaining the encyclopedia's integrity. The language used in the disputed paragraph, such as "Israel has targeted overcrowded urban areas" and "it was not incidental nor accidental," raises serious concerns regarding WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View). Wikipedia requires that content be represented fairly and without bias. Additionally, the reliability of sources and identifying their biases is a key factor as outlined in WP:RS (Reliable Sources). Even when using sources like HRW or the Eurasian Times, sources that use tentative language ("it appears," "it could be") necessitate careful phrasing to avoid asserting claims or opinions as facts. If the information is factual, then other reputable sources can be found to back these assertions. Marokwitz (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that the sources are reliable. If you reject these sources, then (Militarnyi and ynet) are first to be rejected because they don't hold a better reliability criteria than the sources I gave. I think the only valid argument you made here is that some sources (not all) use hesitating language, like (Euro-Med) or (Eurasian Times). However, the complete picture is clear with other sources saying clearly and not tentatively that Israel has used thermobaric bombs on urban areas and targeted civilian targets multiple times.

If you bring sources denying that, then I can include it alongside with the assertive facts I wrote. HM (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed tags

There are currently two neutrality disputed tags on the page, but no ongoing dispute on this talk page. Are these still needed ? Marokwitz (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, removed. Marokwitz (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

In your response you said allegedly that the sources I used were unreliable and that they (the news article) didn't rely on factual evidence, even though they do and they included photos of those weapons and the attacks. So, if those sources are still unreliable, ynet is the first to be rejected as it didn't include a photo of a thermobaric missile nor included sources while Islam21c (that you criticized) did as well as many other sources I mentioned. HM (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the first dispute (Militarnyi), your paragraph seems biased because you didn't include the fact mentioned in your source which I was confirming multiple times. It says "The equipment is used in advanced formations together with tank units conducting assault operations in urban environments." That of which you were denying or refusing to accept. Your source (Militarnyi) clearly mentioned the use of thermobaric bombs in urban areas. So, if this source is reliable, we should include this information in both paragraphs (the one I wrote and the one you wrote). If the source is unreliable, then your paragraph is baseless and needs to be removed. HM (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

And yes the militarynyi source does state "The equipment is used in advanced formations together with tank units conducting assault operations in urban environments." However, the paragraph was specific to the IDF using it to clear minefields and dismantling militant formations. If you would like to add, "This weaponry can also be used for...". Please go ahead and edit as such. Or I can :) Chavmen (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Militarnyi mentioned that it's used in advanced formations in the context of mentioning the operations of the Israeli army. You may argue that this sentence is not related to the ones before it, and it's just referring to a possible way of using the weapon without accusing Israel of using it. However, other people might also have a different valid understanding based on the same text that Israel uses it on urban area, and this understanding is backed up with evidence from different sources I included in the paragraph I wrote and the picture from the source (Militarnyi) which shows Puma vehicle that is a carrier designed for carpet bombing (using thermobaric warheads) wandering in destroyed urban areas in Gaza. Anyway, even if I concede and accept your point of view, It's one source that doesn't genuinely and unambiguously accuse Israel of using the weapon on urban areas. However, many sources, which I added unambiguously confirm that fact of Israel using thermobaric bombs on urban areas.

I'm not saying that pictures hinder the source, but I'm saying that they make a source more reliable. So, if the sources I used, which were more reliable than ynet for the reasons I mentioned earlier, are not accepted then (ynet) is first to be rejected. Besides, (IANS English) is simply paraphrasing and relying on ynet on most of its information in the cited article, specially when it mentioned thermobaric bombs. It was literally quoting (ynet) on that part. So, the dispute is still about the reliability of (ynet) not the ones that quote it. HM (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi HM, pictures can be sources from anywhere so normally that doesn't hinder the source. The second source IANS English further supports Ynet source. Chavmen (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

As for your suggestion to include this information in both paragraphs, it's a constructive approach, and I think it is a good idea to move the statements saying that the Carpet system has been used by Israel during the 2023 Hamas-Israel War from the "Development" to the "Military use" section. Marokwitz (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello marokwitz, I was referring to the information regarding its use in urban areas mentioned in (Militarnyi), which you didn't even include. (Read my last replies) HM (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't object to inclusion of the words "urban areas"... Marokwitz (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I explained what I mean in details. You can read the first parts of the long reply up there. HM (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

In short, I was suggesting to include that Israel used it on urban areas. Not just that it might be used on urban areas. HM (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Your repeated involvement in edit wars is disruptive. I urge you to self-revert as a constructive step forward.

After reverting, please provide, here, a quote from a reliable source (as defined by WP:RS) that substantiates the following statement:

'Israel has used thermobaric bombs in densely populated urban areas of Gaza on multiple occasions. This has resulted in significant civilian casualties and the destruction of entire buildings.' Marokwitz (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Calm down dude. All of the sources I mentioned said that, except for the one about white phosphorus (HRW). When ever I bring to you a reliable source unambiguously mentioning that Israel uses thermobaric bombs on overcrowded Urban areas you start doubting its reliability, even though they are more reliable than the sources you used for your claims (ynet, IANS and Militarnyi) or at least as reliable as they are. Besides it includes pictures supporting the claims. Even your source (Militarnyi) is implying that Israel is using it the weapon on urban areas (I explained that in detail in the long reply up there).

I can also say that you also were participating in that edit war disruptively and you began it. So, if you want this discussion to be helpful and fruitful please provide a specific reason for why all of my sources are unreliable, and that your sources are any better.

There is no point you can make about the sources not mentioning Israeli involvement in using thermobaric bombs on the city of Gaza because they clearly do mention that.

Let me quote some:

Finincial Express: “In recent events that transpired in the Gaza region, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have employed Thermobaric bombs, a devastating and controversial weaponry previously unused on civilians.”

Islam21c: “In the worst ongoing period of violence between Israel and Gaza since the Gaza Massacre of 2008-9, allegations have emerged suggesting the deadly combined use of white phosphorus and vacuum bombs by Israeli forces”

Human Rights Watch: “Second, the repeated use of air-burst white phosphorus in populated areas until the last days of the operation reveals a pattern or policy of conduct rather than incidental or accidental usage.”; this proves what I wrote about incendiary weapons not being used accidentally nor incidentally, which you objected to it.

Almayadeen: “The Israeli occupation warplanes targeted residential homes, mosques, and public institutions throughout the night, launching violent and indiscriminate airstrikes on various areas of the Gaza Strip.” & “Earlier, Al Mayadeen correspondent reported that the Israeli occupation forces waged brutal and indiscriminate airstrikes on the Gaza Strip using thermobaric weapons not to mention phosphorus bombs, which are banned under international law,”; this mentions what I wrote about bombing civilian targets and using thermobaric weapons.”

Euro-Med Monitor: “According to the Euro-Med Monitor team in Gaza, Israel appears to be using thermobaric weaponry (vacuum bombs) in its attack, the effects of which are felt by all residents in the vicinity. These bombs have tremendous destructive power and the ability to level multi-storey buildings.”; this report might have used a tentative language, however, given the other sources that unambiguously confirm the fact that Israel used thermobaric weapon and that many buildings in Gaza were indeed leveled, we can conclude that Israel used it.

And it also says "The death toll among Palestinians has risen to 687, including 140 children and 105 women, with over 3,726 others injured, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza. Meanwhile, the number of housing units that have been completely destroyed since Saturday is about 500, Euro-Med Monitor estimates, while another 2,400 have been partially destroyed." Noting that the article was published on 9th October. So, now the devastation is way bigger.

These sources together completely convey the information I presented in the Wikipedia article. Lastly, you completely ignored the discussion about the reliability of your sources in your last reply. Mentioning that the sources I brought are more reliable than yours.

HM (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Finincial Express: “In recent events that transpired in the Gaza region, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have employed Thermobaric bombs, a devastating and controversial weaponry previously unused on civilians.”

>>> It is not in dispute that IDF have have employed Thermobaric bombs. But it does not back the claim 'in densely populated urban areas of Gaza on multiple occasions. This has resulted in significant civilian casualties and the destruction of entire buildings'

Islam21c: “In the worst ongoing period of violence between Israel and Gaza since the Gaza Massacre of 2008-9, allegations have emerged suggesting the deadly combined use of white phosphorus and vacuum bombs by Israeli forces”

>>> This says 'allegations have emerged'. Not stating it as a fact.

Human Rights Watch: “Second, the repeated use of air-burst white phosphorus in populated areas until the last days of the operation reveals a pattern or policy of conduct rather than incidental or accidental usage.”; this proves what I wrote about incendiary weapons not being used accidentally nor incidentally, which you objected to it.

>>> white phosphorus is not a Thermobaric weapon and is completely irrelevant to this article.

Almayadeen: “The Israeli occupation warplanes targeted residential homes, mosques, and public institutions throughout the night, launching violent and indiscriminate airstrikes on various areas of the Gaza Strip.” & “Earlier, Al Mayadeen correspondent reported that the Israeli occupation forces waged brutal and indiscriminate airstrikes on the Gaza Strip using thermobaric weapons not to mention phosphorus bombs, which are banned under international law,”; this mentions what I wrote about bombing civilian targets and using thermobaric weapons.”

>>>> Almayadeen is a highly unreliable source with very low standards of fact-checking (see [[1]]), and this very quote clearly contains a false statement (phosphorus bombs are not banned under international law).

Euro-Med Monitor: “According to the Euro-Med Monitor team in Gaza, Israel appears to be using thermobaric weaponry (vacuum bombs) in its attack, the effects of which are felt by all residents in the vicinity. These bombs have tremendous destructive power and the ability to level multi-storey buildings.”; this report might have used a tentative language, however, given the other sources that unambiguously confirm the fact that Israel used thermobaric weapon and that many buildings in Gaza were indeed leveled, we can conclude that Israel used it.

>>> It says "appears" and the fact that many buildings in Gaza were leveled is not evidence of what kind of weapon was used . They are saying it "has ability" and we are not at liberty to make our own conclusions per WP:OR or synthesize multiple sources per WP:SYNTH.

And it also says "The death toll among Palestinians has risen to 687, including 140 children and 105 women, with over 3,726 others injured, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza. Meanwhile, the number of housing units that have been completely destroyed since Saturday is about 500, Euro-Med Monitor estimates, while another 2,400 have been partially destroyed." Noting that the article was published on 9th October. So, now the devastation is way bigger.

>>> This does not say anything about whether those deaths were caused by Thermobaric weapons. This is your own conclusion.

These sources together completely convey the information I presented in the Wikipedia article. Lastly, you completely ignored the discussion about the reliability of your sources in your last reply. Mentioning that the sources I brought are more reliable than yours.

>>> Ynet is considered a reliable source in Wikipedia and extensively used in this project as one of the primary news organizations in Israel. There is no problem with using it to discuss the details of IDF weaponry. The Ukrainian weaponry site looks reliable but this is debatable; Can be checked, but we can talk about that in the discussion about that section. Marokwitz (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I already agreed that some sources use tentative language, however, any time a source clearly accuses Israel you start rejecting its reliability without giving a specific logical reason. When AlMayadeen said that white phosphorus is internationally illegal they didn't make a mistake. It's internationally illegal to use it against civilian targets and most countries have signed CCWC which prohibits incendiary weapons, like white phosphorus. So, Almayadeen didn't get it wrong. In fact, you did. It's even mentioned here in this Wikipedia page under international law tab. I mentioned human rights watch as a source because I mentioned incendiary weapons in the paragraph I wrote and incendiary weapons include thermobaric bombs (arguably) as well as white phosphorus, and the non incidental use of such weapons by Israel (according to the source).

Basically, totally discrediting Almayadeen sounds like poisoning the well, and looks like double standards when you still accept ynet even though it has the similar issues by being biased to Israel instead Palestinians.

However, to end this dispute (about both paragraphs the one I wrote and the one you wrote) I think we can use tentative language.

I will make the edit tell me if you accept it or not so that we can reach a middle ground and end this.

HM (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi HM,

Al Mayadeen isn't commonly used and there is an unwritten agreement it is heavily bias. I would recommend using the Human Rights Watch article and state "According to Human Rights Watch, the IDF appears to be using thermobaric weaponry such as white phosphorous." Something like that.

The paragraph you had initially written was heavily POV with no attributions and no words like "appears" "could be" "seems to be".

I think that was the main issue. You wrote the article as fact.

Also, the paragraph Markowitz wrote alluded to this use already. So seemed repetitive to mention. Chavmen (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Hmoud222 and @Marokwitz, I have edited both sections for WP:NPOV and WP:RS, please have a look and let me know if this solves the dispute. Chavmen (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the first section I included the sources that mentioned the capability of the weapons to destroy multi-story buildings. I hope this completely solves the issue regarding the first section.

Regarding the second section, multiple reports are claiming almost the same thing. So, we can mention all of those claims (with tentative language as we agreed to end the dispute) and then include all the sources. I think it's important not to remove any claim. Instead we use tentative language when mentioning the claims as we agreed. HM (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

This sentence is false, please familiarize yourself with WP:SYNTH. "capable of causing severe devastation to multi story buildings" is an unverifiable statement, as Rafael Carpet system is a system for minefield clearing and neutralization, there is no evidence that this specific system is capable to destroy buildings. Marokwitz (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Marokwitz I edited that sentence out as I could not find it any of the sources mentioned. Chavmen (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

HM, the respectable sources do not mention that it can cause devastation or "level" mutli-story buildings" as you wrote. I will need to revert your edit. It just isn't in the articles that pass WP:RSP.

@markowtiz has added the sentence about the Rafeal Carpet system but I fail to see how the paragraph you added with the non-WP:RSP sources is viable for this article. Chavmen (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Euro-Med says that about thermobaric missiles. So, I will include it when it's mentioned. HM (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi HM,

I just want to repeat what Markowitz stated above:

Euro-Med Monitor: “According to the Euro-Med Monitor team in Gaza, Israel appears to be using thermobaric weaponry (vacuum bombs) in its attack, the effects of which are felt by all residents in the vicinity. These bombs have tremendous destructive power and the ability to level multi-storey buildings.”; this report might have used a tentative language, however, given the other sources that unambiguously confirm the fact that Israel used thermobaric weapon and that many buildings in Gaza were indeed leveled, we can conclude that Israel used it.

>>> It says "appears" and the fact that many buildings in Gaza were leveled is not evidence of what kind of weapon was used . They are saying it "has ability" and we are not at liberty to make our own conclusions per WP:OR or synthesize multiple sources per WP:SYNTH.

Chavmen (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, the language has to say it appears - and attribute to Euro-Med Monitor. Chavmen (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi HM, I have read the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor web site again and the article does not pass the WP:NPOV nor is it listed in the WP:RS (I know this list is not exhaustive but two other senior editors have stated this already).

See the following language:

"Israeli forces are mass-killing civilians in the Gaza Strip and subjecting them to collective punishment, said Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor in a statement."

"Israel takes revenge on Palestinian armed factions by mass killing civilians in Gaza."

I think this source is questionable. I will review the other sources now. Chavmen (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Chavmen

First, we used tentative language as agreed. Second, the source is reliable and neutral. If you keep discrediting every source that presents information that you don't accept that will put you under suspicion of being biased, sorry to say. We said "according to euro-med …" and we used the tentative language it used. So, it should be settled now.

When CNN, BBC and other "reliable" western channels criticized bad actions done by some people like Saddam Hussein or Putin and so on. It's not considered biased by doing so. So, we must apply the same criteria by not postulating or assuming that Israel or Netanyahu are infallible and discrediting every reliable source that reports their bad actions (ie the condemnation or exoneration of Israel or Netanyahu's government is not a premise. It's a conclusion to what the reliable sources tell us).

We cited a reliable source. We said "according to". I think it's done.

HM (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hmoud,

When I search the Euro Med Monitor source with the Chrome WP:RSP extension it comes up with a "?" over the source - hence why I am saying that the source is not verified. It isn't my bias. If you add the extension yourself you can confirm this.

That's why I am going by what the senior editors said above and not using. Chavmen (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, I feel like my edit was very NPOV. I used several of the sources you listed and wrote the following:

Thermobaric weapons have the capacity to demolish reinforced buildings, equipment, and cause harm to any people within its range.

You wrote this:

This weapon has the capability of leveling multi-story buildings, which makes the weapon tremendously destructive in urban areas.

I reworded the source because this sentence was almost word for word from the source. Chavmen (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

One more point,

You wrote:

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor state that Israel appears to be using thermobaric weaponry in the current 2023 Israel-Hamas War. Euro-Med also claims that Israel "deliberately target civilian objects to inflict widespread casualties and destruction, including material and human losses". Euro-Med also says that "mass killings, and burying residents beneath the rubble of their own homes, are examples of Israeli bombing policy that disregards the principles of necessity and proportionality.

This is a lot of emphasis on one source. Hence why I edited it to this with other sources:

Reports made by Human Rights Watch have claimed that Israel has used thermobaric weaponry in the past including the 2008-2009 conflict in Gaza. HRW states that the use of this weaponry in densely populated neighborhoods violated international humanitarian law due to its damaging affects on civilians and civilian structures. In the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, the Eurasian Times reported that an Israeli AH-64D Apache attack helicopter was photographed with a 'mystery' warhead with a red band that was speculated to be a thermobaric warhead capable of destroying Hamas tunnels and multi-story buildings.

I think the neutrality and verifiability of sources is more suitable. Chavmen (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Considering HRW is also a human rights monitor, what about if we agree on the following:

Reports made by Human Rights Watch have claimed that Israel has used thermobaric weaponry in the past including the 2008-2009 conflict in Gaza. Moreover, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor states that Israel appears to be using thermobaric weaponry in the current 2023 Israel-Hamas War. Both organisations claim that the use of this weaponry in densely populated neighborhoods violates international humanitarian law due to its damaging affects on civilians and civilian structures. Chavmen (talk) 08:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright, will change to this. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Hamas use of thermobaric grenades

The talk has moved on from rockets to "thermobaric grenades", apparently hand-thrown devices by how they look. The "rockets" probably refer (in part?) to RPG-7-launched double-warheads with penetrating explosive tip plus a thermobaric chamber, made and/or designed in Iran, with Hamas also copying the design in local Gaza workshops. This looks to me like a whole new range of smaller, portable, "poor-man's" super-weapons, used for military purposes against IDF targets, and for terror against civilians. Not covered by the article, or at least not sufficiently.

Here is a detailed Jerusalem Post article, with linked-in Youtube presentation (I can only get the Wiki-prohibited youtu-dot-be URL, I'm sure others can find the youtube.com equivalent). Arminden (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

This now appears to be one of the spurious claims made at the time and none of the citations is especially trustworthy, so I am removing it. 2A00:23C7:6221:9801:A05D:A382:2131:D3A3 (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)