China’s foreign minister said Saturday that Israel has gone too far in responding to last week’s invasion by Hamas, China’s official news agency reported.

Speaking to Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Israel’s actions have extended beyond self-defense.

According to Xinhua, China has an interest in helping resolve the conflict and the underlying issues involving the Palestinian population.

  • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I will repeat, people use weapons they create.

    Ok dunce, your comments are right there.

    If they were made in the same factory, you mean? Its the same concept as forensicall bullet to barrel matching. You are matching the casing to known micro defects of the regions manufacture.

    Different manufacturers use different materials for the barrel, or chamber, etc which alters how the bullet or casing is dented, burned, etc. Theres also some minor stylistic differences which result in the same thing. AK47s from russia in the 60s jam a lot, for example, way more than is normal. Something was wrong with a template, and the error wasnt caught for a while.

    This forensics was used in the middle east under bush to id who had participated in different fire fights, because different groups were supplied from different sources. If you know only the taliban has access to russian made weaponry, for example, you can use that to id where they were involved.

    Your handler should have told you all this, very embarassing.

    • Joncash2@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nothing you said is correct. I literally sent you a document that explains how it works. Your ignorance is astounding.

      • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No you didnt, you sent a link to a 2 paragraph article-ette detailing how cops apply the science to match a gun to a crime scene.

        Thats just how local cops use it, not the only way to study post firing remnants. Cops dont need to know which militaristic force robbed your cousin, just if his personal gun was at the crime.

        This is like if you posted a mini blurb on how to collect rain water in your backyard as proof that the water cycle doesnt create fog.

        Ask your handler. Im sure he can explain this to you using pictures with bright colors.

        E: I actually went looking through that site, and while its not public access they go into some detail about how they are literally creating a database of gun type forensics. Literally exactly what I am talking about, down to gun year and difficulties vs obvious tells for specific models.

        • Joncash2@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, things they didn’t have in the 89s. Thanks for confirming you have no idea what you’re talking about. A database of gun type forensics. Yeah all those super computers in China back then.

          • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Holy shit, you genuinely are stupid. That single website is working on their own private database for american gun circulation. That is not the global database for all guns ever since the invention of guns. We have had ballistic forensics since the 1800s, and manufacturer tells have been commonly known since the 20s.

            I pointed it out as an example from your source confirming that what I said was correct. Are you now calling your own source a liar?

            Also… Hey, buddy? You understand databases are older than computers right? A database is just a collection of datapoints. This could be, and likely is, a stapled packet of papers sorted by company and model.

            Oh, wait, let me guess. China didnt have paper in the 80s?

            • Joncash2@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              A collection of sortable data points. Guess what isn’t easy to sort, stacks of paper. No one had a “database” of forensic markings to compare anything to back then. Which is why they compared it to the barrels. Sure once you get computers and stuff you could use that to collect data points and sort, but you ain’t doing that with paper.

              Otherwise, why even have computers?

              *Edit: Oh wait is this your thinking of how SKS are handcrafted? The world doesn’t work that way.

              • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Hold up, are you trying to claim that china is so incompetent that they couldnt do the basic levels of investigation that had been common use since the 20s on a massive terrorist attack??

                The US was using this data nationwide in the 60s. Are you genuinely saying china was over 2 decades behind the US for basic investigation capacity?? For a supposed terrorist attack??

                How incompetent are you trying to say china is?

                • Joncash2@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  At that time, very. That’s actually well known. China’s boom didn’t really start until the early 2000. Which is why America likes to say that they created China.

                  But all that is actually not the point. It’s not an issue of incompetence but simply not keeping stacks of useless data about minor forensic differences in bullets. As with most places at that time, you’d just have enough to give you type of gun but not make and manufacturer. I’m not even sure that US would have had it at that time.

                  *Edit and China didn’t care at the time because unlike the violent shithole that is America, they didn’t have a lot of gun crime.

                  • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Ballistics forensics has been considered massive military intel since, again, the 20s. Its considered one of the intel gold standards, it is only useless if youre a fucking moron.

                    Its cute that youre pretending this is some useless info, but even a simple google search would show you otherwise. Any country with legal guns keeps detailed records. As you yourself so proudly stated, china had a thriving foreign gun economy. Information about those guns would have been at the tips of any investigations fingers. (It doesnt matter how much gun crime you have, because if you have any gun crime at all you need to id the murder weapon.)

                    Especially while investigating a terrorist attack.

                    Youre grasping at straws because you didnt read your own source before sending it to me with a bow, not realizing it confirmed what I already told you. Just admit youre lying about the fake terrorists.