Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Petro Poroshenko

5 (29.4%)

Yulia Tymoshenko

2 (11.8%)

Oleg Lyashko

2 (11.8%)

Anatoly Hrytsenko

2 (11.8%)

Serhiy Tihipko

0 (0%)

Mykhailo Dobkin

0 (0%)

Other

6 (35.3%)

Total Members Voted: 17

[Sean Mirrsen]

... pretty sure standard mobile artillery tactics don't include firing from high value civilian locations. Because, y'know, counter artillery, damaged/destroyed civil infrastructure, and dead civilians. They're things. All of which you kinda' want to avoid, but especially the latter two.

Though it does kinda beg the question of who shows more blatant disregard for human life - the people firing artillery out of a populated city, or the people firing artillery into a populated city?

[Sergarr]

Firing artillery is already showing a disregard for human life, seeing as it tends to kill people [/useless_remark]

[Mictlantecuhtli]

... pretty sure standard mobile artillery tactics don't include firing from high value civilian locations. Because, y'know, counter artillery, damaged/destroyed civil infrastructure, and dead civilians. They're things. All of which you kinda' want to avoid, but especially the latter two.

Though it does kinda beg the question of who shows more blatant disregard for human life - the people firing artillery out of a populated city, or the people firing artillery into a populated city?

Yes, the people using civilians as human shields while firing weaponry from their neighborhoods to try and force Ukraine to attack civilians are wrong for using those tactics. Actually, it's what terrorists do.

[Helgoland]

... pretty sure standard mobile artillery tactics don't include firing from high value civilian locations. Because, y'know, counter artillery, damaged/destroyed civil infrastructure, and dead civilians. They're things. All of which you kinda' want to avoid, but especially the latter two.

Though it does kinda beg the question of who shows more blatant disregard for human life - the people firing artillery out of a populated city, or the people firing artillery into a populated city?

What are the guys outside gonna do - just ignore the people trying to kill them? Let themselves be slaughtered like WWI soldiers?

[Sergarr]

... pretty sure standard mobile artillery tactics don't include firing from high value civilian locations. Because, y'know, counter artillery, damaged/destroyed civil infrastructure, and dead civilians. They're things. All of which you kinda' want to avoid, but especially the latter two.

Though it does kinda beg the question of who shows more blatant disregard for human life - the people firing artillery out of a populated city, or the people firing artillery into a populated city?

Yes, the people using civilians as human shields while firing weaponry from their neighborhoods to try and force Ukraine to attack civilians are wrong for using those tactics. Actually, it's what terrorists do.

Pretty sure Ukraine started shelling civilians first, what with the Slavyansk's siege and all.

[Helgoland]

Shelling cities is not a crime, Sergarr. At least as long as it serves a military purpose.
Huh, I remember a certain Russian ally who's not at all picky about what exactly he's shelling - and Putin has been backing him for years...

[Frumple]

Though it does kinda beg the question of who shows more blatant disregard for human life - the people firing artillery out of a populated city, or the people firing artillery into a populated city?

When it comes to counter-barrages? Almost certainly the ones firing first. There's disregard there on both sides, but the one actively painting a civilian target as, well, a target, is the scummier of the two.

[LordSlowpoke]

What are the guys outside gonna do - just ignore the people trying to kill them? Let themselves be slaughtered like WWI soldiers?

* LordSlowpoke blinks

so what you're saying here is that the poor ukrainian soldiers don't actually want to get rid of insurgents, it's the insurgents who fire munitions at them and force the soldiers to react?

i'd say you copypasted your post from the various israel threads but it's not like the situations are comparable

[Helgoland]

I'll ignore that last bit. And your argument applies just as much to the separatists, and to any other party in any other war - you're not secretly a pacifist, are you?

[Sergarr]

Shelling cities is not a crime, Sergarr. At least as long as it serves a military purpose.
Huh, I remember a certain Russian ally who's not at all picky about what exactly he's shelling - and Putin has been backing him for years...

A certain individual here tries to implies that any action that can lead to increase in civilians deaths makes one a terrorist.

"I won't mention who did this, but it was an elephant"

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Actually, murdering civilians and forcing them to live under your rule at gunpoint while using them as human shields while trying to force your ethnic and moral identity onto dissenters is pretty much all the hallmarks of terrorism. Glad to make sure you know that.

[Helgoland]

Shelling cities is not a crime, Sergarr. At least as long as it serves a military purpose.
Huh, I remember a certain Russian ally who's not at all picky about what exactly he's shelling - and Putin has been backing him for years...

A certain individual here tries to implies that any action that can lead to increase in civilians deaths makes one a terrorist.

"I won't mention who did this, but it was an elephant"

An increase in civilian deaths without military purpose, Sergarr. Don't fight against strawmen, nobody's ever won at that.
(Unless you meant someone else, but I don't think anyone here claimed civilian casualties are something you can avoid in a war.)

[LordSlowpoke]

I'll ignore that last bit. And your argument applies just as much to the separatists, and to any other party in any other war - you're not secretly a pacifist, are you?

no, i'm rather overtly a pacifist thank you

pointless redtext violence aside that is

[Sergarr]

Actually, murdering civilians and forcing them to live under your rule at gunpoint while using them as human shields while trying to force your ethnic and moral identity onto dissenters is pretty much all the hallmarks of terrorism. Glad to make sure you know that.

That's not terrorism!
That's a hallmarks of occupation!

Why do you not know the difference between terrorism and occupation? Oh wait, I know why. Because Americans have no clues about how a occupation looks like, since nobody has invaded mainland USA for more than a century!

[Knit tie]

Or what the rebels doing could be just a standard mobile artillery tactic, because if a battery remains in place after it has fired, it almost inevitably gets destroyed by the counter-barrage. And the rebel artillery can't really choose from where to shoot that much, either, it's all dependent on the positions of the enemy.

Wasn't referring to them moving, I was referring to them deciding to fire outside a hospital.

Well that's a dumb decision and I hope whoever did that was punished for that.

Well, it's not like the rebels can't just fuck up once in a while. I mean, there's evidence of both sides' artillery hitting civilian buildings, and I don't really think that even 1% of this was intentional. The rebels fire out of the cities, most of the time, that's true, but so do the Ukrainians when they actually have their cannons stationed in cities as well.

@mainiac.
While I certainly agree that russian annexation of Crimea what was spurned the rebels to action, I don't really agree that things would've been any more civil without Russia getting involved. The  phrase that Ukrainian government uses, "Russian invasion", is rather misleading, because there hasn't really been any Russian sightings whatsoever outside of Novorossia, and there most of the people Ukrainians are fighting are still rebels who are occasionally supported by Russian supplies and rarely - by troops. I think we should call the situation "Russian intervention", not because I am trying to argue moral superiority here, I don't, but because what Russia has done was support an already existing rebel faction in a civil war and not just attack the Ukrainian border. Why am I saying this? Because I think that rebels still would've declared independence and fought even without Russian support, and considering how incompetent the Ukrainian high command is, what we would've gotten was something similar to the 1st Chechen war: Ukraine wins, but with huge unnecessary losses and absolute lack of stability in the region. This war, I have to disagree with you, is not defined by ethnic, but rather by ideological differences - Donbass whats to secede, Ukraine doesn't want Donbass to secede, and nobody really cares about ethnicities, because both the Russians and the Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine are so intermingled that it's almost impossible to set them apart, and instead the division is at the national affiliation level: if you support Ukraine, you are Ukrainian, and if you support Donbass independence, you are not Ukrainian. That's why the majority of Russians under Ukrainian control aren't discriminated against, because nobody cares that they are ethnically Russian, they support Ukraine and thus they are our guys, allies, etc., like what happened in the USA during it's civil war, with nobody caring about whether you are from the south or from the north, but rather whom do you support. If you watch Simon Ostrovsky vidos, you can see plenty of Ukrainian fighters (including some from the Azov battalion) saying that they are ethnically Russian and that they fight not against Russians as a race, but against Russia as a state. And so, while I don't condone Russia sticking its fingers in another country's civil war, or indeed starting said civil war by chopping off a chunk of a sovereign country, I think that the current bloodshed was not initiated and is not driven by Russia, but rather by inter-Ukrainian political and ideological conflicts.