Kiev Is Burning

[Yama]

20 minutes ago, bojan said:

PS. Writing patriotic slogans on towels that someone will dry ass crack with...

I had a towel once patterned as Finnish flag and...I was just uncomfortable using it 

[JWB]

More war crimes

 

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, JWB said:

More war crimes

 

We're discussing the murder of Ukrainian surrendering troops elsewhere.  Seems like both side are slipping into some pretty brutal war crimes with drones.

[mkenny]

Just now, glenn239 said:

We're discussing the murder of Ukrainian surrendering troops elsewhere.  Seems like both side are slipping into some pretty brutal war crimes with drones.

No different from aircrew incinerating 10,000 civilians a night in WW2.  

[Stefan Kotsch]

Just now, glenn239 said:

war crimes with drones

What do you mean by that? At what point does a drone attack become a crime?

[glenn239]

5 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

What do you mean by that? At what point does a drone attack become a crime?

It becomes a war crime when the attack deliberately targets and kills either civilians such as the vids JWB posts seem to be showing, or when it targets troops that are in the act of surrendering.

Edited October 14, 2024 by glenn239

[Stuart Galbraith]

13 minutes ago, mkenny said:

No different from aircrew incinerating 10,000 civilians a night in WW2.  

Completely, totally, and utterly different.

 

[mkenny]

37 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Completely, totally, and utterly different.

 

No. Completely, totally and utterly the exact same thing. 

 

[mkenny]

Just now, mkenny said:

No. Completely, totally and utterly 100% the exact same thing. 

 

 

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

or when it targets troops that are in the act of surrendering.

Well, surrendering also means surrendering to a specific opponent. Raising your arms towards the drone somewhere in no man's land is not surrendering to an specific opponent.

Civilians are protected by international war law. In theory anyway.

[Stuart Galbraith]

47 minutes ago, mkenny said:

No. Completely, totally and utterly the exact same thing. 

 

Overlooking it was those same Germans being bombed that had voted for a Nazi regime that gave them a total war, that it was our only support we could give for the Soviets for years, that viable military targets were in those cities, and that it was not Air ministry policy to target civilians at all but 'dehouse', then yes, overlooking all that it might to somebody with absolutely  no knowledge  of WW2 strategic bombing as if it was the same thing.

Is that the same as bombing in a wholly aggressive war wholly innocent civilians for no effect than terror? No. it has far more in common with the Nazi Baedecker raids, not to mention the v1 and v2 campaigns, which were wholly indiscriminate.

Basically you are being an apologist for Russian agression again. As an apparent socialist you should be ashamed at yourself for running interference for an imperialist and in my view fascist regime.

Hatred makes strange bedfellows on tanknet of course.

 

 

Edited October 14, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[mkenny]

2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Overlooking it was those same Germans being bombed that had voted for a Nazi regime that gave them a total war, that it was our only support we could give for the Soviets for years, that viable military targets were in those cities, and that it was not Air ministry policy to target civilians at all but 'dehouse', then yes, overlooking all that it might to somebody with absolutely  no knowledge  of WW2 strategic bombing as if it was the same thing.

Is that the same as bombing in a wholly aggressive war wholly innocent civilians for no effect than terror? No. it has far more in common with the Nazi Baedecker raids, not to mention the v1 and v2 campaigns, which were wholly indiscriminate.

Basically you are being an apologist for Russian agression again. As an apparent socialist you should be ashamed at yourself for running interference for an imperialist and in my view fascist regime.

Hatred makes strange bedfellows on tanknet of course.

 

 

I know all the Allied excuses for area bombing.

It is all bollocks.

'They started it' is not a valid excuse

Civilians were the target and that is a fact. 

You just can't admit that the 'good guys' were just as willing to immolate innocent children as the bad guys.

[ink]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Overlooking it was those same Germans being bombed that had voted for a Nazi regime [...]

Less than half of them, surely.

[R011]

In the 1940s, precision meant bombing the right city. Sometimes, they did well to get to get the right country.  Eighty years later, it means something a little better than that.

But then if we took that into consideration, we couldn't play the moral equivalency game.

[mkenny]

9 minutes ago, R011 said:

In the 1940s, precision meant bombing the right city. Sometimes, they did well to get to get the right country.  Eighty years later, it means something a little better than that.

But then if we took that into consideration, we couldn't play the moral equivalency game.

Yep, gotta love western pin-point precision super-weapons.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiriyah_shelter_bombing

 

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2024 by mkenny

[JWB]

2 hours ago, mkenny said:

Yep, gotta love western pin-point precision super-weapons.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiriyah_shelter_bombing

 

 

 

 

According to the U.S. military, the shelter at Amiriyah had been targeted because it fit the profile of a military command center; electronic signals from the locality had been reported as coming from the site, and spy satellites had observed people and vehicles moving in, and out of the shelter.^[4]

[JWB]

6 hours ago, mkenny said:

I know all the Allied excuses for area bombing.

It is all bollocks.

'They started it' is not a valid excuse

Civilians were the target and that is a fact. 

You just can't admit that the 'good guys' were just as willing to immolate innocent children as the bad guys.

International law does not work that way.

[R011]

6 hours ago, mkenny said:

I know all the Allied excuses for area bombing.

It is all bollocks.

'They started it' is not a valid excuse

Actually, according to the state of international law at the time, yes it was.  Not that that was the reason for it.  Not now and not retroactively.

Quote

Civilians were the target and that is a fact.

 Yes they were a target, though not initially.  The war workers directly contributing to the enemy war effort.  The other casualties were then acceptable collateral damage.  The original intentions, to target factories only, very soon proved to be impossible to isolate.  Destroying everything and killing everyone worked. 

The West doesn't need to do that now and tries to minimize collateral damage, mostly but not always successfully.

Russia doesn't seem to care or may indeed be deliberately targetting them given the number of non-military targets that have been hit.

Quote

You just can't admit that the 'good guys' were just as willing to immolate innocent children as the bad guys.

The good guys killed "innocent" people when they had  no other choice.  They didn't go out of their way to murder innocent children the way the bad guys did.  No Nankings.  No Three Alls.  No Final Solutions. No

Quote

Yep, gotta love western pin-point precision super-weapons.

In 1944, that would have been the entire city of Bagdad and done on purpose, not an accident caused by co-locating a civilian shelter with a military communications node.  Use of human shields is a war crime, by the way.

[mkenny]

2 hours ago, JWB said:

According to the U.S. military, the shelter at Amiriyah had been targeted because it fit the profile of a military command center; electronic signals from the locality had been reported as coming from the site, and spy satellites had observed people and vehicles moving in, and out of the shelter.^[4]

Overall what does the Wiki article say about that 'excuse'?

[mkenny]

2 hours ago, JWB said:

International law does not work that way.

Who mentioned international law?

[mkenny]

1 hour ago, R011 said:

The good guys killed "innocent" people when they had  no other choice.  They didn't go out of their way to murder innocent children the way the bad guys did.  No Nankings.  No Three Alls.  No Final Solutions. No

.

'The West' does not care that much about the deaths of brown-skinned people. Never has and never will.  

I am sure those who died in the famine in India in WW2 died a lot easier knowing The British 'had  no other choice'.

You keep believing they 'had no choice'. 

[R011]

4 minutes ago, mkenny said:

Overall what does the Wiki article say about that 'excuse'?

That they thought it was a military personnel shelter rather than a command post, though that comes indirectly from an anti-Western propagandist.  In other words, even if that's correct, they still thought it was a legitimate military target.  Nothing in the article indicates the US knew it was being used as a shelter for hundreds of civilians. 

[mkenny]

1 minute ago, R011 said:

That they thought it was a military personnel shelter rather than a command post, though that comes indirectly from an anti-Western propagandist.  In other words, even if that's correct, they still thought it was a legitimate military target.  Nothing in the article indicates the US knew it was being used as a shelter for hundreds of civilians. 

Bollocks.

You will believe any old rubbish put out by the killers.

No one cared if it was civilian or military.

It is not important enough to check when brown people are the potential victims. 

[R011]

4 minutes ago, mkenny said:

'The West' does not care that much about the deaths of brown-skinned people. Never has and never will.  

I am sure those who died in the famine in India in WW2 died a lot easier knowing The British 'had  no other choice'.

You keep believing they 'had no choice'. 

So you're now claiming the Bengal Famine was a deliberate act, like the Nazi Hunger Plan.   And tghis is relevant to current Russian war crimes how? 

[R011]

2 minutes ago, mkenny said:

Bollocks.

You will believe any old rubbish put out by the killers.

No one cared if it was civilian or military.

It is not important enough to check when brown people are the potential victims. 

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.  And of course, notyhing in the source your using supports this.

Edited October 15, 2024 by R011