Ukraine

[SydneyRover]

I will go further and say that this is such a serious subject that if you are not willing to supply links to your sources and accompanying evidence do not post it at all BRR.

[Bristol Red Rover]

I will go further and say that this is such a serious subject that if you are not willing to supply links to your sources and accompanying evidence do not post it at all BRR.

The censor speaks.

I don't have a collection of bookmarks, nor much of a memory for where I saw things, but will send what I see from here. Meanwhile, if you think it is 's that serious, you could look yourself? Given your concern I expect you will. Maybe you can post links.

[SydneyRover]

I will go further and say that this is such a serious subject that if you are not willing to supply links to your sources and accompanying evidence do not post it at all BRR.

The censor speaks.

I don't have a collection of bookmarks, nor much of a memory for where I saw things, but will send what I see from here. Meanwhile, if you think it is 's that serious, you could look yourself? Given your concern I expect you will. Maybe you can post links.

No, I ask you support what you say is all, and it appears you can't.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Request for pics/vids. I'll see if I can find vids supporting this, but what do you make of this?

[BobG]

Looks like a flattened building. It don't tell us bugger all else

BobG

[Bristol Red Rover]

Your eyes don't see the impact on the rail lines?

[Bristol Red Rover]

Noted - the lack of response to those pics I posted above from certain folks here. Except for BG who had lost his specs

[BillyStubbsTears]

I really don't get the point you are making BRR.

Are you saying the attack was a surgical one, deliberately and precisely aimed at cutting the rail line?

If so, why not aim the attack 2-300m up or down the line and so, away from the shopping mall?
 

[glosterred]

Your eyes don't see the impact on the rail lines?

You cannot say that impacted was on the rail lines, there is no crater around the impact point to suggested it landed on the lines. The damage you are seeing is just as likely to have been caused by the back blast from the explosion in the building. The picture quality is not sufficient to say either way.

[turnbull for england]

This must be what listening to Lord Hawhaw was like

[Bristol Red Rover]

Surgical or not, the impact appears not to on the the Mall. If it was you'd see it, and at best there is nothing whatsoever indicating the impact to see in the mall. From the pattern from the blast, impact appears to be in the centre of that circle. If you saw vids of either of the impacts, you know how powerful they were, and how that would show.

There is a vid, produced by Ukraine, showing damage inside the Mall in one of the shops. However, there is nothing there to show blast damage, including glass bottles all still on their shelves, unbroken. Could be this was the only shop that didn't have blast damage. Strange to show the least affected shop.

Does this mean targeting weapons being stored near people is okay? It's war, so within that sickness, I'd say yes. Does it mean Ukraine shouldn't be storing weapons near the public? Well, this is what happens if they do. They know this.

Ive said before, Ukraine is frequently storing and using weapons adjacent to or even within public spaces. Of course they will, they are desperate. And it scores points for getting more NATO support when these places are damaged. Not least because public opinion in those countries is shifted by the narrative, enabling governments to pour billions into Ukraine. That's not from the magic money tree, its from the pockets of ordinary people, and a huge slice of that ends up in the pockets of corporations. And for what? Prolonging a futile war, getting more people killed.

So far, the story has been that Russia targeted civilians. It didn't.

[Bristol Red Rover]

This must be what listening to Lord Hawhaw was like

You pays your money and takes your choice what propaganda you swallow. Wave that flag.

[Axholme Lion]

Surgical or not, the impact appears not to on the the Mall. If it was you'd see it, and at best there is nothing whatsoever indicating the impact to see in the mall. From the pattern from the blast, impact appears to be in the centre of that circle. If you saw vids of either of the impacts, you know how powerful they were, and how that would show.

There is a vid, produced by Ukraine, showing damage inside the Mall in one of the shops. However, there is nothing there to show blast damage, including glass bottles all still on their shelves, unbroken. Could be this was the only shop that didn't have blast damage. Strange to show the least affected shop.

Does this mean targeting weapons being stored near people is okay? It's war, so within that sickness, I'd say yes. Does it mean Ukraine shouldn't be storing weapons near the public? Well, this is what happens if they do. They know this.

Ive said before, Ukraine is frequently storing and using weapons adjacent to or even within public spaces. Of course they will, they are desperate. And it scores points for getting more NATO support when these places are damaged. Not least because public opinion in those countries is shifted by the narrative, enabling governments to pour billions into Ukraine. That's not from the magic money tree, its from the pockets of ordinary people, and a huge slice of that ends up in the pockets of corporations. And for what? Prolonging a futile war, getting more people killed.

So far, the story has been that Russia targeted civilians. It didn't.

It's a scandal that the British public is struggling to put food on the table, heat their homes and fuel their cars whilst our government is throwing money at these pirates. Maybe people in favour of sanctions against Russia should crowd fund their support and leave the rest of us out of it?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BRR.

You still haven't dealt with my point.

If the Russian missiles can be so well targeted that they could specifically hit a section of rail track to sever it, why choose to specifically strike a section of the track where the collateral damage would be enormous.

The very best gloss your argument can put on the Russian argument is that they are reckless regarding the likelihood of mass civilian casualties.


Which way do you want it? Are they able to surgically attack but don't give a f**k who gets hurt? Or are they not able to surgically attack and don't give a f**k who gets hurt?

[wilts rover]

Bloke who says check facts behind Ukranian claims doesnt check facts behind Russian claims.

The shopping centre & car plant were hit by KH-22 cruise missiles. This is 60 year old technology - its just not possible to have a 'surgical strike' with them. A couple of hundred metres as to where they were aimed is 'accurate'.

The Russians do have more modern and more acurate ones - but they are not using them. They are using these old ones. This bloke thinks it is because they are holding them back for any NATO movement.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/06/why-russia-is-using-old-kh-22-aircraft-carrier-killer-missiles-to-hit-ukraine/

Using these missiles to aim in the vicinity of a shopping centre is a war crime.

[wilts rover]

Mariupol Theatre attack a clear war crime - Amnesty International Report

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/06/ukraine-deadly-mariupol-theatre-strike-a-clear-war-crime-by-russian-forces-new-investigation/

[wilts rover]

Detailed satellite image of the Kremenchuk attack - you can see here quite clearly where the debris on the railway BRR pointed out came from. The thread gives a report and more pictures from the site(s):

https://twitter.com/fredabrahams/status/1542419051284205569

[belton rover]

Looks like a flattened building. It don't tell us bugger all else

BobG

You might want to rewrite that, Bobby G.

[Bristol Red Rover]

BST, there you go then. That's why, apparently.

Wilts, where exactly on that pic are you saying the missile hit?

And is it not a war crime to be putting weapons near population areas? Or in your Waddington War Game does it say can't shoot if within 500m of a non combatant. Good for those using human shields is that - not a war crime either then.

Meanwhile, in this case we all agree Russia wasn't targeting civilians as reported in all Western media, and by the Billy Blinkers Brigade on here.

[wilts rover]

Right in the centre of the shopping centre - hence the spread of damage.

CCTV from the yard through the trees on other side of railway of the moment of impact:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2zKQS9HKWo

[Bristol Red Rover]

Mariupol Theatre attack a clear war crime - Amnesty International Report

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/06/ukraine-deadly-mariupol-theatre-strike-a-clear-war-crime-by-russian-forces-new-investigation/

Interesting that events where people are deliberately whipped up into aggressive frenzies by politicians and US gov agents don't count as war crimes. Like this https://youtu.be/qyJiUW7bRkQ

[Bristol Red Rover]

Right in the centre of the shopping centre - hence the spread of damage.

CCTV from the yard through the trees on other side of railway of the moment of impact:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2zKQS9HKWo

No crater there. Nothing that looks like a missile hit.

Seen the vids, and others. V powerful eh! You think a shopping centre wouldn't show more damage than that pic if that missile had hit it?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BST, there you go then. That's why, apparently.

Wilts, where exactly on that pic are you saying the missile hit?

And is it not a war crime to be putting weapons near population areas? Or in your Waddington War Game does it say can't shoot if within 500m of a non combatant. Good for those using human shields is that - not a war crime either then.

Meanwhile, in this case we all agree Russia wasn't targeting civilians as reported in all Western media, and by the Billy Blinkers Brigade on here.

More bluster and avoiding the point.

I asked you a very specific question.

You replied with like a muck spreader.

Do you want to go back and have another go at answering the specific question?

[Bristol Red Rover]

BST, there you go then. That's why, apparently.

Wilts, where exactly on that pic are you saying the missile hit?

And is it not a war crime to be putting weapons near population areas? Or in your Waddington War Game does it say can't shoot if within 500m of a non combatant. Good for those using human shields is that - not a war crime either then.

Meanwhile, in this case we all agree Russia wasn't targeting civilians as reported in all Western media, and by the Billy Blinkers Brigade on here.

More bluster and avoiding the point.

I asked you a very specific question.

You replied with like a muck spreader.

Do you want to go back and have another go at answering the specific question?

Not got your brain in gear this eve? As wilts said, older weapons, less accurate.

Be nice if you didn't cherry pick your replies too. Stacks that you ignore.

[Bristol Red Rover]

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. 

I meant to get back to this. It was around 500 civilians killed by NATO air strikes in Serbia?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Ok. Great. We've got you down to accepting inaccurate weapons.

So why on earth were you pointing out that one of the weapons appears to have hit somewhere around a railway line and the end of the shopping mall? What was your point.

(PS. I stopped answering your questions when you "meh"ed at the obliteration of Mariupol and called it one of those things that happen in war. I'll confine myself to pointing out the gross inconsistencies in your take.)

[BillyStubbsTears]

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. 

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.

[Dutch Uncle]

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. 

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.

BRR I think you are confusing Operation Deliberate Force in Bosnia in 1995 with Operation Allied Force in 1999 in Serbia. The latter I was not involved in and don't know the details, the former was as I described. The latter however was certainly not without problems.


Allied Force in 1999 (from wiki):

NATO's intervention was prompted by Yugoslavia's bloodshed and ethnic cleansing of Albanians, which drove the Albanians into neighbouring countries and had the potential to destabilize the region. Yugoslavia's actions had already provoked condemnation by international organisations and agencies such as the UN, NATO, and various INGOs.[31][32] Yugoslavia's refusal to sign the Rambouillet Accords was initially offered as justification for NATO's use of force.[33] NATO countries attempted to gain authorisation from the UN Security Council for military action, but were opposed by China and Russia, who indicated that they would veto such a measure. As a result, NATO launched its campaign without the UN's approval, stating that it was a humanitarian intervention. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in the case of a decision by the Security Council under Chapter VII, or self-defence against an armed attack – neither of which were present in this case.[34]

By the end of the war, the Yugoslavs had killed 1,500[35] to 2,131 combatants,[36] while choosing to heavily target Kosovar Albanian civilians, with 8,676 killed or missing[36] and some 848,000 expelled from Kosovo.[37] The NATO bombing killed about 1,000 members of the Yugoslav security forces in addition to between 489 and 528 civilians.

A UN Mandate is most definitely preferred (as was the case in 1995), but the Russian & Chinese veto stopped that. In my eyes it was a flawed operation but looking at the numbers of civilians killed or displaced by the Serbians it could at least be said that many more lives were saved.  That is absolutely not the case in Ukraine at the moment.   

[Axholme Lion]

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. 

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.

[Filo]

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. 

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.

If we’re attacked by a hostile nation you’ll be screaming for NATO

Your avatar is offensive by the way, it reflects the fascist you appear to be!