0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.
I have pretty well withdrawn from this thread. I find myself dumbfounded by the sheer illogocality, willfull blindness, claptrap uttering, evidence lacking filth and wild generalisartions of certain right wingers on this thread. Yes Axholme. Amongst others, that's you. Liberty has its limits - which is where I disagree with Wilts. Yes Axholme has shown the truly awful nature of his personality. But the poison he utters is on a par with preaching terrorism - which this country has banned. Go much further Axholme and I will report you to the responsible people. I do know them by the way,BobG
BRR the Ukrainians should surely be able to stockpile munitions and weapons wherever they want on their own territory.They are defending their homeland. Any Russian military personnel dying in the Ukraine are invaders and at the very least trespassing on foreign territory.Every country should have the right to defend itself surely?
BRR.1) .... For the record, I have seen evidence of Ukranian troops killing captured Russian prisoners. I did and do condemn that unreservedly. It's a war crime.
2) Amnesty International have today accused Russia of deliberately targeting the Mariupol theatre. That targeting was possible because they had air superiority. The theatre was hit with two separate 500kg air drop bombs, despite the sheltering civilians having written (I'm Russian) "CHILDREN" outside in huge letters precisely to indicate that it should not be a target. If you have evidence that contradicts the Amnesty report, post it. And "evidence" doesn't mean "someone on Telegram said maybe..."3) In areas where Russia does not have air superiority, they have routinely attacked with unguided or poorly guided rockets and missiles. Doing that in densely populated areas is a war crime. 4).....This from the Human Rights Watch body, about the Geneva Convention's definition of the word. "Under international humanitarian law, attacks that are not, or as a result of the method of attack cannot, be aimed at military targets, are considered "indiscriminate." They are prohibited under Protocol I and, under the same treaty, constitute war crimes."By no means imaginable can a KH22 missile be orecisely aimed at a specific target in an urban area. Either in principle (because the 50 year old guidance technology was intended to get the missile to the general vicinity of a big target while carrying a thermonuclear warhead) or in practice, as we have seen this week. Launching that at a civilian area (even if, as you do, you believe the Russian propaganda that the intended target was military) and then killing civilians IS a war crime. It is the very definition of an indiscriminate attack under the Geneva Convention.
BRR.1) If you have credible evidence of Ukrainian soldiers raping and killing Russian civilians, post it instead of doing what you usually do - your Trump-esque thing of "A lot of people are saying both sides are doing it.".....
5) If you know of evidence that there are military targets being hidden in civilian areas, post it. If you don't, have some self respect and stop playing the Useful Idiot on this topic.
Quote from: idler on July 03, 2022, 12:30:01 amBRR the Ukrainians should surely be able to stockpile munitions and weapons wherever they want on their own territory.They are defending their homeland. Any Russian military personnel dying in the Ukraine are invaders and at the very least trespassing on foreign territory.Every country should have the right to defend itself surely?If they're putting it next to civilians, that is a crime. It becomes a target, obviously.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on July 01, 2022, 10:13:11 pmBRR.1) If you have credible evidence of Ukrainian soldiers raping and killing Russian civilians, post it instead of doing what you usually do - your Trump-esque thing of "A lot of people are saying both sides are doing it.".....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat6JWKp1kw
BRR.1) If you have credible evidence of Ukrainian soldiers raping and killing Russian civilians, post it instead of doing what you usually do - your Trump-esque thing of "A lot of people are saying both sides are doing it.".....
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on July 01, 2022, 10:13:11 pm5) If you know of evidence that there are military targets being hidden in civilian areas, post it. If you don't, have some self respect and stop playing the Useful Idiot on this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5rhidUyObEActually human shields, which is worse.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on July 01, 2022, 10:13:11 pm2) Amnesty International have today accused Russia of deliberately targeting the Mariupol theatre. That targeting was possible because they had air superiority. The theatre was hit with two separate 500kg air drop bombs, despite the sheltering civilians having written (I'm Russian) "CHILDREN" outside in huge letters precisely to indicate that it should not be a target. If you have evidence that contradicts the Amnesty report, post it. And "evidence" doesn't mean "someone on Telegram said maybe..."3) In areas where Russia does not have air superiority, they have routinely attacked with unguided or poorly guided rockets and missiles. Doing that in densely populated areas is a war crime. 4).....This from the Human Rights Watch body, about the Geneva Convention's definition of the word. "Under international humanitarian law, attacks that are not, or as a result of the method of attack cannot, be aimed at military targets, are considered "indiscriminate." They are prohibited under Protocol I and, under the same treaty, constitute war crimes."By no means imaginable can a KH22 missile be orecisely aimed at a specific target in an urban area. Either in principle (because the 50 year old guidance technology was intended to get the missile to the general vicinity of a big target while carrying a thermonuclear warhead) or in practice, as we have seen this week. Launching that at a civilian area (even if, as you do, you believe the Russian propaganda that the intended target was military) and then killing civilians IS a war crime. It is the very definition of an indiscriminate attack under the Geneva Convention.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOfWXBSKGTc
2) Amnesty International have today accused Russia of deliberately targeting the Mariupol theatre. That targeting was possible because they had air superiority. The theatre was hit with two separate 500kg air drop bombs, despite the sheltering civilians having written (I'm Russian) "CHILDREN" outside in huge letters precisely to indicate that it should not be a target. If you have evidence that contradicts the Amnesty report, post it. And "evidence" doesn't mean "someone on Telegram said maybe..."3) In areas where Russia does not have air superiority, they have routinely attacked with unguided or poorly guided rockets and missiles. Doing that in densely populated areas is a war crime. 4).....This from the Human Rights Watch body, about the Geneva Convention's definition of the word. "Under international humanitarian law, attacks that are not, or as a result of the method of attack cannot, be aimed at military targets, are considered "indiscriminate." They are prohibited under Protocol I and, under the same treaty, constitute war crimes."By no means imaginable can a KH22 missile be orecisely aimed at a specific target in an urban area. Either in principle (because the 50 year old guidance technology was intended to get the missile to the general vicinity of a big target while carrying a thermonuclear warhead) or in practice, as we have seen this week. Launching that at a civilian area (even if, as you do, you believe the Russian propaganda that the intended target was military) and then killing civilians IS a war crime. It is the very definition of an indiscriminate attack under the Geneva Convention.
Quote from: Bristol Red Rover on July 03, 2022, 02:54:01 amQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on July 01, 2022, 10:13:11 pm5) If you know of evidence that there are military targets being hidden in civilian areas, post it. If you don't, have some self respect and stop playing the Useful Idiot on this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5rhidUyObEActually human shields, which is worse.Let me get this right. They've just been released from being held hostage in a steel works. And all of them are spotlessly clean with combed hair and bright, fresh clothes on?
Quote from: Bristol Red Rover on July 03, 2022, 02:41:16 amQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on July 01, 2022, 10:13:11 pm2) Amnesty International have today accused Russia of deliberately targeting the Mariupol theatre. That targeting was possible because they had air superiority. The theatre was hit with two separate 500kg air drop bombs, despite the sheltering civilians having written (I'm Russian) "CHILDREN" outside in huge letters precisely to indicate that it should not be a target. If you have evidence that contradicts the Amnesty report, post it. And "evidence" doesn't mean "someone on Telegram said maybe..."3) In areas where Russia does not have air superiority, they have routinely attacked with unguided or poorly guided rockets and missiles. Doing that in densely populated areas is a war crime. 4).....This from the Human Rights Watch body, about the Geneva Convention's definition of the word. "Under international humanitarian law, attacks that are not, or as a result of the method of attack cannot, be aimed at military targets, are considered "indiscriminate." They are prohibited under Protocol I and, under the same treaty, constitute war crimes."By no means imaginable can a KH22 missile be orecisely aimed at a specific target in an urban area. Either in principle (because the 50 year old guidance technology was intended to get the missile to the general vicinity of a big target while carrying a thermonuclear warhead) or in practice, as we have seen this week. Launching that at a civilian area (even if, as you do, you believe the Russian propaganda that the intended target was military) and then killing civilians IS a war crime. It is the very definition of an indiscriminate attack under the Geneva Convention.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOfWXBSKGTcAssuming the validity of that, it's horrible. Truly.I've never questioned that horrific things have gone on in the Donbas after 2014 when Russia fiirst invaded. I think there is evidence of war crimes committed by both sides. That is pretty much inevitable in any conflict where the front line is in urban areas.What there is no evidence of, is indiscriminate lobbing of 1000kg anti-tank missiles into populated areas hundreds of miles from the front. Neither is there evidence of systematic obliteration of large urban regions by Ukrainian bombardment.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on July 01, 2022, 10:13:11 pm2) Amnesty International have today accused Russia of deliberately targeting the Mariupol theatre. That targeting was possible because they had air superiority. The theatre was hit with two separate 500kg air drop bombs, despite the sheltering civilians having written (I'm Russian) "CHILDREN" outside in huge letters precisely to indicate that it should not be a target. If you have evidence that contradicts the Amnesty report, post it. And "evidence" doesn't mean "someone on Telegram said maybe..."3) In areas where Russia does not have air superiority, they have routinely attacked with unguided or poorly guided rockets and missiles. Doing that in densely populated areas is a war crime. 4).....This from the Human Rights Watch body, about the Geneva Convention's definition of the word. "Under international humanitarian law, attacks that are not, or as a result of the method of attack cannot, be aimed at military targets, are considered "indiscriminate." They are prohibited under Protocol I and, under the same treaty, constitute war crimes."By no means imaginable can a KH22 missile be orecisely aimed at a specific target in an urban area. Either in principle (because the 50 year old guidance technology was intended to get the missile to the general vicinity of a big target while carrying a thermonuclear warhead) or in practice, as we have seen this week. Launching that at a civilian area (even if, as you do, you believe the Russian propaganda that the intended target was military) and then killing civilians IS a war crime. It is the very definition of an indiscriminate attack under the Geneva Convention.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOfWXBSKGTc
2) Amnesty International have today accused Russia of deliberately targeting the Mariupol theatre. That targeting was possible because they had air superiority. The theatre was hit with two separate 500kg air drop bombs, despite the sheltering civilians having written (I'm Russian) "CHILDREN" outside in huge letters precisely to indicate that it should not be a target. If you have evidence that contradicts the Amnesty report, post it. And "evidence" doesn't mean "someone on Telegram said maybe..."3) In areas where Russia does not have air superiority, they have routinely attacked with unguided or poorly guided rockets and missiles. Doing that in densely populated areas is a war crime. 4).....This from the Human Rights Watch body, about the Geneva Convention's definition of the word. "Under international humanitarian law, attacks that are not, or as a result of the method of attack cannot, be aimed at military targets, are considered "indiscriminate." They are prohibited under Protocol I and, under the same treaty, constitute war crimes."By no means imaginable can a KH22 missile be orecisely aimed at a specific target in an urban area. Either in principle (because the 50 year old guidance technology was intended to get the missile to the general vicinity of a big target while carrying a thermonuclear warhead) or in practice, as we have seen this week. Launching that at a civilian area (even if, as you do, you believe the Russian propaganda that the intended target was military) and then killing civilians IS a war crime. It is the very definition of an indiscriminate attack under the Geneva Convention.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on July 03, 2022, 11:05:48 amQuote from: Bristol Red Rover on July 03, 2022, 02:41:16 amQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on July 01, 2022, 10:13:11 pm2) Amnesty International have today accused Russia of deliberately targeting the Mariupol theatre. That targeting was possible because they had air superiority. The theatre was hit with two separate 500kg air drop bombs, despite the sheltering civilians having written (I'm Russian) "CHILDREN" outside in huge letters precisely to indicate that it should not be a target. If you have evidence that contradicts the Amnesty report, post it. And "evidence" doesn't mean "someone on Telegram said maybe..."3) In areas where Russia does not have air superiority, they have routinely attacked with unguided or poorly guided rockets and missiles. Doing that in densely populated areas is a war crime. 4).....This from the Human Rights Watch body, about the Geneva Convention's definition of the word. "Under international humanitarian law, attacks that are not, or as a result of the method of attack cannot, be aimed at military targets, are considered "indiscriminate." They are prohibited under Protocol I and, under the same treaty, constitute war crimes."By no means imaginable can a KH22 missile be orecisely aimed at a specific target in an urban area. Either in principle (because the 50 year old guidance technology was intended to get the missile to the general vicinity of a big target while carrying a thermonuclear warhead) or in practice, as we have seen this week. Launching that at a civilian area (even if, as you do, you believe the Russian propaganda that the intended target was military) and then killing civilians IS a war crime. It is the very definition of an indiscriminate attack under the Geneva Convention.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOfWXBSKGTcAssuming the validity of that, it's horrible. Truly.I've never questioned that horrific things have gone on in the Donbas after 2014 when Russia fiirst invaded. I think there is evidence of war crimes committed by both sides. That is pretty much inevitable in any conflict where the front line is in urban areas.What there is no evidence of, is indiscriminate lobbing of 1000kg anti-tank missiles into populated areas hundreds of miles from the front. Neither is there evidence of systematic obliteration of large urban regions by Ukrainian bombardment. It does seems from many vids and reports that Ukraine is hitting back including at civilian targets as they retreat.And then thishttps://www.reuters.com/world/europe/least-three-killed-blasts-russias-belgorod-near-ukraine-border-local-governor-2022-07-03/
Quote from: Bristol Red Rover on July 03, 2022, 02:41:16 amQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on July 01, 2022, 10:13:11 pm2) Amnesty International have today accused Russia of deliberately targeting the Mariupol theatre. That targeting was possible because they had air superiority. The theatre was hit with two separate 500kg air drop bombs, despite the sheltering civilians having written (I'm Russian) "CHILDREN" outside in huge letters precisely to indicate that it should not be a target. If you have evidence that contradicts the Amnesty report, post it. And "evidence" doesn't mean "someone on Telegram said maybe..."3) In areas where Russia does not have air superiority, they have routinely attacked with unguided or poorly guided rockets and missiles. Doing that in densely populated areas is a war crime. 4).....This from the Human Rights Watch body, about the Geneva Convention's definition of the word. "Under international humanitarian law, attacks that are not, or as a result of the method of attack cannot, be aimed at military targets, are considered "indiscriminate." They are prohibited under Protocol I and, under the same treaty, constitute war crimes."By no means imaginable can a KH22 missile be orecisely aimed at a specific target in an urban area. Either in principle (because the 50 year old guidance technology was intended to get the missile to the general vicinity of a big target while carrying a thermonuclear warhead) or in practice, as we have seen this week. Launching that at a civilian area (even if, as you do, you believe the Russian propaganda that the intended target was military) and then killing civilians IS a war crime. It is the very definition of an indiscriminate attack under the Geneva Convention.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOfWXBSKGTcAssuming the validity of that, it's horrible. Truly.I've never questioned that horrific things have gone on in the Donbas after 2014 when Russia fiirst invaded. I think there is evidence of war crimes committed by both sides. That is pretty much inevitable in any conflict where the front line is in urban areas.What there is no evidence of, is indiscriminate lobbing of 1000kg anti-tank missiles into populated areas hundreds of miles from the front. Neither is there evidence of systematic obliteration of large urban regions by Ukrainian bombardment.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on July 01, 2022, 10:13:11 pm2) Amnesty International have today accused Russia of deliberately targeting the Mariupol theatre. That targeting was possible because they had air superiority. The theatre was hit with two separate 500kg air drop bombs, despite the sheltering civilians having written (I'm Russian) "CHILDREN" outside in huge letters precisely to indicate that it should not be a target. If you have evidence that contradicts the Amnesty report, post it. And "evidence" doesn't mean "someone on Telegram said maybe..."3) In areas where Russia does not have air superiority, they have routinely attacked with unguided or poorly guided rockets and missiles. Doing that in densely populated areas is a war crime. 4).....This from the Human Rights Watch body, about the Geneva Convention's definition of the word. "Under international humanitarian law, attacks that are not, or as a result of the method of attack cannot, be aimed at military targets, are considered "indiscriminate." They are prohibited under Protocol I and, under the same treaty, constitute war crimes."By no means imaginable can a KH22 missile be orecisely aimed at a specific target in an urban area. Either in principle (because the 50 year old guidance technology was intended to get the missile to the general vicinity of a big target while carrying a thermonuclear warhead) or in practice, as we have seen this week. Launching that at a civilian area (even if, as you do, you believe the Russian propaganda that the intended target was military) and then killing civilians IS a war crime. It is the very definition of an indiscriminate attack under the Geneva Convention.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOfWXBSKGTc
2) Amnesty International have today accused Russia of deliberately targeting the Mariupol theatre. That targeting was possible because they had air superiority. The theatre was hit with two separate 500kg air drop bombs, despite the sheltering civilians having written (I'm Russian) "CHILDREN" outside in huge letters precisely to indicate that it should not be a target. If you have evidence that contradicts the Amnesty report, post it. And "evidence" doesn't mean "someone on Telegram said maybe..."3) In areas where Russia does not have air superiority, they have routinely attacked with unguided or poorly guided rockets and missiles. Doing that in densely populated areas is a war crime. 4).....This from the Human Rights Watch body, about the Geneva Convention's definition of the word. "Under international humanitarian law, attacks that are not, or as a result of the method of attack cannot, be aimed at military targets, are considered "indiscriminate." They are prohibited under Protocol I and, under the same treaty, constitute war crimes."By no means imaginable can a KH22 missile be orecisely aimed at a specific target in an urban area. Either in principle (because the 50 year old guidance technology was intended to get the missile to the general vicinity of a big target while carrying a thermonuclear warhead) or in practice, as we have seen this week. Launching that at a civilian area (even if, as you do, you believe the Russian propaganda that the intended target was military) and then killing civilians IS a war crime. It is the very definition of an indiscriminate attack under the Geneva Convention.
You realise that this was probably cause because it was intercepted by the Russian and the debris fell on its own citizens, just saying
Quote from: Axholme Lion on July 01, 2022, 10:12:27 amQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on June 30, 2022, 09:17:03 pmQuote from: Bristol Red Rover on June 30, 2022, 09:11:33 pmQuote from: Dutch Uncle on June 27, 2022, 08:26:23 pmIn my eyes collateral damage from an air and missile attack is always the fault and blame of the attacker who has caused the situation by choosing a target where this is possible. Even if the damage was technically caused by debris from air defence missiles or targets these defence missiles had hit, the attacker is fully to blame. BTW I am no expert but the pictures of the apartment block I have seen look more like damage from an explosion than being hit by debris. Compare that with NATO's first ever offensive mission against Bosnian Serb air defences in which the Theatre Air Commander personally vetted all targets on a daily basis to make sure there was no chance of collateral damage.Source: 'Deliberate Force, an Air Study in Air Campaigning' by Col Robert C Owen (which backs up my personal experience as part of an after action Lessons Learned team) Putin and his Commanders have at best taken no account whatsoever of civilian casualties on regularly repeated occasions (Theatres, Churches, Schools, Hospitals, Supermarkets.......), and at worst are deliberately targeting them which is a war crime pure and simple. I meant to get back to this. It was around 500 civilians killed by NATO air strikes in Serbia? If so, that would be 1/16th the number that Mladic's Serb-backed butchers massacred in a couple of days in Srebrenica. If the NATO action did anything to prevent a repeat, it was justified.RUBBISH. WTF was Serbia any business of NATO? NATO is clearly a tool in the west and international big business to shape the world in their desired shape. SCUM.Axholme, I am sure you are completely aware that I find your post offensive and would simply like to ask specifically who within NATO are you calling scum. Is it:• The politicians who make all the decisions to either accept a NATO new member, launch any NATO operation, define new strategic concepts etc• The current military staff serving under a current rotation at a NATO establishment or Headquarters who direct an operation authorized by the politicians according to their guidance• The permanent staff (many civilians, international civil servants if you like)• All of the above If the first then you are calling scum every political leader of each NATO nation including the US and the UK, but also Norway, Denmark, Greece, France, Canada, Germany, Poland just to name a very few. The operation referred to in my post was in 1995 when John Major was PM, was authorised by a United Nations Security Council Resolution (are you calling them scum as well). The operation had next to no collateral damage, ended the war in Bosnia, lead to peace and Mladic and Karadzic being found guilty of war crimes (remember Srebenica?). The operation in 1999 (which I was not referring to originally) was launched when Tony Blair was PM, did cause ca 500 deaths by collateral damage which is indeed bad, but can claim to have saved many more lives than that. If your answer is the second then these are people who followed strict guidelines. If your answer is 3 or 4 then I am personally being attacked. I think it likely you know very little indeed about my work, but in my 35 years civilian service I always questioned my role and the role of NATO. Throughout I was always convinced NATO was trying to establish and protect peace. I am proud to have done a tiny amount and am honoured to have met some wonderful people who truly have made a difference. The two operations above are the only offensive ones ever undertaken by NATO – NATO refused to enter operations in Iraq, and was involved as a peace-keeping force in Afghanistan (the initial ISAF force was an ad-hoc coalition, not NATO). In Libya NATO was responsible for the no-fly zone, but it was the US who unilaterally launched the air strikes. NATO was asked to take over so that strikes could be vetoed (from wiki):24 March 2011: In telephone negotiations, French foreign minister Alain Juppé agreed to let NATO take over all military operations on 29 March at the latest, allowing Turkey to veto strikes on Gaddafi ground forces from that point forward.[76] Later reports stated that NATO would take over enforcement of the no-fly zone and the arms embargo, but discussions were still under way about whether NATO would take over the protection of civilians mission. Turkey reportedly wanted the power to veto airstrikes, while France wanted to prevent Turkey from having such a veto.[77][78]This is one example of the fact of all NATO nations having to agree an operation or allow accession to a new member (like Sweden & Finland today) means it is a difficult organization for any one nation (particularly the US) to high-jack. Indeed NATO has on occasions refused some aggressive proposals (e.g first Gulf War). Other operations seem to be quickly forgotten such as Humanitarian Relief to Pakistan after an earthquake. With regards to NATO expansion, not one single nation has been asked to join NATO, it is by request and every single nation concerned has positively wanted this. In my time (I retired more than a decade ago) expansion was never an objective of NATO.That is the reality I experienced from the inside for 35 years and you now seem to be calling me and my colleagues scum.None of this is remotely comparable with the brutal actions of Russia in Grozny, Aleppo, Mariupol, and as it looks like many more cities to come.I hope you read this sufficiently carefully and can decide that your comment may have been founded on insufficient information and knowledge.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on June 30, 2022, 09:17:03 pmQuote from: Bristol Red Rover on June 30, 2022, 09:11:33 pmQuote from: Dutch Uncle on June 27, 2022, 08:26:23 pmIn my eyes collateral damage from an air and missile attack is always the fault and blame of the attacker who has caused the situation by choosing a target where this is possible. Even if the damage was technically caused by debris from air defence missiles or targets these defence missiles had hit, the attacker is fully to blame. BTW I am no expert but the pictures of the apartment block I have seen look more like damage from an explosion than being hit by debris. Compare that with NATO's first ever offensive mission against Bosnian Serb air defences in which the Theatre Air Commander personally vetted all targets on a daily basis to make sure there was no chance of collateral damage.Source: 'Deliberate Force, an Air Study in Air Campaigning' by Col Robert C Owen (which backs up my personal experience as part of an after action Lessons Learned team) Putin and his Commanders have at best taken no account whatsoever of civilian casualties on regularly repeated occasions (Theatres, Churches, Schools, Hospitals, Supermarkets.......), and at worst are deliberately targeting them which is a war crime pure and simple. I meant to get back to this. It was around 500 civilians killed by NATO air strikes in Serbia? If so, that would be 1/16th the number that Mladic's Serb-backed butchers massacred in a couple of days in Srebrenica. If the NATO action did anything to prevent a repeat, it was justified.RUBBISH. WTF was Serbia any business of NATO? NATO is clearly a tool in the west and international big business to shape the world in their desired shape. SCUM.
Quote from: Bristol Red Rover on June 30, 2022, 09:11:33 pmQuote from: Dutch Uncle on June 27, 2022, 08:26:23 pmIn my eyes collateral damage from an air and missile attack is always the fault and blame of the attacker who has caused the situation by choosing a target where this is possible. Even if the damage was technically caused by debris from air defence missiles or targets these defence missiles had hit, the attacker is fully to blame. BTW I am no expert but the pictures of the apartment block I have seen look more like damage from an explosion than being hit by debris. Compare that with NATO's first ever offensive mission against Bosnian Serb air defences in which the Theatre Air Commander personally vetted all targets on a daily basis to make sure there was no chance of collateral damage.Source: 'Deliberate Force, an Air Study in Air Campaigning' by Col Robert C Owen (which backs up my personal experience as part of an after action Lessons Learned team) Putin and his Commanders have at best taken no account whatsoever of civilian casualties on regularly repeated occasions (Theatres, Churches, Schools, Hospitals, Supermarkets.......), and at worst are deliberately targeting them which is a war crime pure and simple. I meant to get back to this. It was around 500 civilians killed by NATO air strikes in Serbia? If so, that would be 1/16th the number that Mladic's Serb-backed butchers massacred in a couple of days in Srebrenica. If the NATO action did anything to prevent a repeat, it was justified.
Quote from: Dutch Uncle on June 27, 2022, 08:26:23 pmIn my eyes collateral damage from an air and missile attack is always the fault and blame of the attacker who has caused the situation by choosing a target where this is possible. Even if the damage was technically caused by debris from air defence missiles or targets these defence missiles had hit, the attacker is fully to blame. BTW I am no expert but the pictures of the apartment block I have seen look more like damage from an explosion than being hit by debris. Compare that with NATO's first ever offensive mission against Bosnian Serb air defences in which the Theatre Air Commander personally vetted all targets on a daily basis to make sure there was no chance of collateral damage.Source: 'Deliberate Force, an Air Study in Air Campaigning' by Col Robert C Owen (which backs up my personal experience as part of an after action Lessons Learned team) Putin and his Commanders have at best taken no account whatsoever of civilian casualties on regularly repeated occasions (Theatres, Churches, Schools, Hospitals, Supermarkets.......), and at worst are deliberately targeting them which is a war crime pure and simple. I meant to get back to this. It was around 500 civilians killed by NATO air strikes in Serbia?
In my eyes collateral damage from an air and missile attack is always the fault and blame of the attacker who has caused the situation by choosing a target where this is possible. Even if the damage was technically caused by debris from air defence missiles or targets these defence missiles had hit, the attacker is fully to blame. BTW I am no expert but the pictures of the apartment block I have seen look more like damage from an explosion than being hit by debris. Compare that with NATO's first ever offensive mission against Bosnian Serb air defences in which the Theatre Air Commander personally vetted all targets on a daily basis to make sure there was no chance of collateral damage.Source: 'Deliberate Force, an Air Study in Air Campaigning' by Col Robert C Owen (which backs up my personal experience as part of an after action Lessons Learned team) Putin and his Commanders have at best taken no account whatsoever of civilian casualties on regularly repeated occasions (Theatres, Churches, Schools, Hospitals, Supermarkets.......), and at worst are deliberately targeting them which is a war crime pure and simple.
There you go. New avatar, is everyone happy now???
Quote from: Axholme Lion on July 04, 2022, 08:47:18 amThere you go. New avatar, is everyone happy now???Love it comrade. Looking forward to you promoting communism on other political threads too.
I am against all power blocks, EU, NATO, USA... they all lead to trouble in the end. IMO they are all driven and controlled by multinational big business who only wish for bigger markets and more profits. The people of all nations are pawns in their games. Did the U.S. care about Vietnam? No, but they bombed the shit out of it just to prove a point. Western democracy?
Dutch.Re: EU and peace. The way in which the anti-EU people blithely ignore this is very depressing. As the saying goes, those who don't know their history are fated to repeat it.I've been reading the excellent "Two Hundred Years of Muddling Through" by the brilliant Duncan Weldon. It's about the last two centuries history of our economy. He gets it. He says about the founding of the EU, "the idea was to tie Germany and France in such a loving embrace that neither would be able to get a fist free to punch the other one."
AL.You reckon that military action between Germany and France wouldn't affect us?