John wasn’t saying that the Russians were “mad”. I took what he was saying as that if Russians ran into some Ukrainian civilians firing rifles at approaching Russian soldiers the Russians might level the whole village with artillery fire. This probably isn’t a war crime even though it might look like one to a guy with a camera observing the destruction the next day.
Lol who’s even talking about artillery fire right now?
So all the civilians tied up and shot in the back of the head, the rapes, the babies in cellars, the families shot - all backed up by civilian testimony to countless news people on the ground very soon after these towns were liberated - we’re just going to ignore all that? Who’s to say, fog of war, yadda yadda.
1 Like
Well, c’mon; his theories aren’t wrong, reality is.
About covers it for me. If reality doesn’t hit you hard enough, cognitive dissonance is easily dealt with by denial.
Wat now? It sure is, bro, it sure is.
Hint: the people firing rifles at them are not civilians, they are combatants. The people not firing rifles at them are noncombatants, a.k.a. civilians. Surely you understand this?
1 Like
Suzzer, I have put it into my own words. You didn’t read that either. If I do it again you still won’t read it. You bizarrely have an opinion about Mearsheimer, mostly manifesting itself in weird rape analogies, even though you basically know nothing about what he actually thinks, writes, and says.
The rape metaphor is spot on. You refuse to see that, but most others get it.
You and Mearsheimer are both completely ignoring the blatant atrocities I’ve posted ad infinitum in this thread that would be very very hard to fake. None of that has anything to do with civilian volunteers. It literally has no bearing other than an attempt to deflect and minimize atrocities like Bucha.
Imagine the Russians in Red Dawn raped and slaughtered a bunch of civilians in cold blood because the Wolverines blew up a tank. Would it be relevant - in the context of the atrocities committed against children, women, the elderly - to point out that the Wolverines blew up the tank?
1 Like
Yeah, this. Pure deflection.
That’s John’s point? That if civilians are arming themselves and fighting they are then combatants and legitimate targets. Civilians taking up arms and fighting will tend to increase the violence against civilians even by well meaning armies (not that Russia likely fits this category).
What does “level the whole village with artillery fire mean”? To me, it means literally “kill every man, woman and child in the village, indiscriminately”. If it means something else, please clarify. If it means that, your point, is, at best, nonsensical.
Or are we leaving that part ambiguous by design?
John doesn’t deny that there are atrocities being committed by the Russians. He said “Putin targeting civilians, or the Russians targeting civilians.” To me that means he’s asking the question of are atrocities policy or not. I don’t know the answer to that, John doesn’t either. I suspect you do, so good for you I guess.
And it’s legitimate to tie their hands behind their backs and execute them?
It’s legitimate to rape their wives, mothers and daughters?
It’s legitimate to kill the mayor’s entire family because she wouldn’t play ball?
It’s legitimate to murder the woman’s husband in the video I just posted?
It’s legitimate to bomb a train depot where women and children were waiting to evacuate?
About 100 other fucking atrocities I’ve posted itt are ll legitimate?
The level you ignore these completely non-combat-related atrocities, even when directly asked about them, is truly impressive.
of course not
it is not
no
depends
Wait now we’re talking about policy? When did that come into the conversation? As usual you’re going on one of those keeed journeys where you completely re-align your argument every few posts.
Who cares if it’s policy? It’s happening. It’s clearly policy to look the other way at best. Bringing up armed civilians in the context of clearly non-combat atrocities is the exact same as blaming the rape victim for wearing a tight dress.
There is ample evidence that there are orders to target residential buildings and civilian infrastructure, some people are just ignoring it on purpose. It has been adduced in this thread before, but I can re-post some if you like.
Obviously, some soldiers are taking it upon themselves to go above and beyond the normal atrocities, but that is a separate issue.
Just to clarify, these are different categories of war crimes:
-
A pilot of a bomber captured with target co-ordinates of a residential building.
-
A private dragging women and girls out of cellars where they are hiding and raping them while indiscriminately executing other civilians.
Let’s not conflate these things. But there is ample evidence that they both happened.
Right, I made the grave error of actually listening to John’s remarks, which he starts by saying “Putin targeting civilians…” To me that’s clearly John talking about what the actual Russian policies are.
I didn’t listen to John’s remarks. I am responding to yours.
Residential buildings can be legitimate targets of war. Bombing one can also be a war crime. If there’s infantry entrenched in an apartment building then leveling it with bombs and artillery is probably not a war crime.
Who cares? He immediately shifts into “But it’s hard to know what’s going on.” and “The US has encouraged Ukraine has armed civilians” (is this even true, does he have any evidence that was the US’ idea? )
It’s clear that his overall point is to deflect and minimize Russian war crimes.
Why are you referring to Mearsheimer as John? Is he your uncle or something?
2 Likes
Wow, I didn’t know there were about a million members of this Azov batallion. Seems that there’s at least one entrenched in each apartment block in about 6 different cities, not to mention every house in 100 different villages.
I.e. fuck off with this shit.