Putin's invasion of Ukraine
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
It sounds like you're advocating for the mass killing of innocent civilians. Please clarify.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
Ukrainian Anti-Tank-Rocket Crew hitting 4 armored vehicles in quick succession
im guessing this is early morning and the tank-crews might have been sleeping in side or beside thier tanks.
it looks like the last tank they hit is running with possible exhaust smoke coming out the left side before its hit.
what is the writing on the screen view finder ? looks middle eastern
im guessing this is early morning and the tank-crews might have been sleeping in side or beside thier tanks.
it looks like the last tank they hit is running with possible exhaust smoke coming out the left side before its hit.
what is the writing on the screen view finder ? looks middle eastern
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
what is russias real losses of vehicles and weapons ?
should i start my own thread in free thoughts
and can you please move my posts to it ?
(((i started my own thread, could you please move my posts to it ?)))
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/russian-military-losses-in-ukraine-videos-discussion.165410/
evidence of what is taking place
documenting the Russian casualties because Russia is lying about it and the media are not focusing on it
but its a war of attrition to some point
so the total number of Russian military vehicles that get hit is KEY to how the real war is taking place.
so there is evidence to back up discussion about the real losses of Russia
Last edited:
Maybe Turkish as they are providing some arms I think
Last edited:
Turkish uses a modified Latin alphabet.
I looked it up in Google and it seemed similar in appearance to arabic to me .
Perhaps it can be written either way? (European or middle eastern)
Or maybe that is long hand writing?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=turkish writing&t=samsung&ia=web
Last edited:
Each Russian vehicle destroyed has a human crew of how many? 4-5 soldiers at least ..perhaps.
Some suggest it's actually a Ukrainian system but that they're using stockpiles that were to be sent to places like Algeria, Morocco, Sudia Arabia etc. But if so, you'd have thought in this day and age the devices would have a language option in a menu?
You're unlikely to get any reliable figure, as losses are not all recorded, some will be double-counted, and obviously there is a strong tendency to exaggerate losses that the opposition is suffering.
I did find this site: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
It claims to only document losses where there is evidence (video, photo etc) so they warn the true figures are likely significantly higher.
But it's a start.
typical vehicle is crewed by 3. commander, gunner, driver.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
i have made my own thread and will stop posting (videos and commenting) in this one
http://sciforums.com/threads/russia...kraine-videos-discussion.165410/#post-3696642
I'm advocating for a perpetual state of economic and diplomatic isolation combined with military assistance to the populations historically displaced by Russia's centuries of expansion into other people's lands, until the Russian people have been forced back to the lands on which their nation was originally founded. Whether they want to have a nuclear war over the issue or not is up to them but it wouldn't personally deter me from supporting an end to their empire at any cost.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
As a Londoner, I'm not particularly keen to get fried, ,just in order to try to unwind Eastern European history to some arbitrary date in the past. If one takes that view of history, it would logically mean unwinding the USA and returning California and Tejas, for a start.
Surely the issue is the preservation of respect for international law and national boundaries in the present, isn't it? Though the moral case for that is somewhat weakened by the Iraq invasion, I suppose.
Furthermore, a full scale nuclear war would entail the death of millions of US citizens as well as Europeans - and might well leave China as the dominant world power.
By that argument you would be advocating the giving up of all empire globally, the military assistance to enact that, and economic and diplomatic isolation of those countries until achieved? So that would include handing back North America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc to the relevant indiginous populations? European powers expanded into other people's lands throughout their history, so we should look to reverse all that? How far back would you intend to look? Which boundaries do you consider "correct" and to be reestablished?
Or are you, as exchemist notes, more concerned with respect for the current boundaries.
As I discussed earlier I feel the main reason we are all in this mess is because the world is too quick to do business with Nations that deliberately ignore international laws and regulations. On one hand those nations agree to abide by those rules that further their agenda and simultaneously break them. Or in other words, it takes international agreement to allow for orderly trade but also facilitates regimes in their desire to break them. Taking advantage of those laws so that they can ultimately break them with a degree of impunity due to economic dependencies of client nations.
Russia knows that for it's nation to develop it must be a part of the international community. It also knows that to achieve that, it must abide by the laws that allows that community to function.
To that end the sanctions imposed and more should be automatically invoked once obvious breaches of that international agreement occur. Invading a sovereign nations borders would be one such cause ( red line) to invoke immediate suspension of trade. The suspension only being lifted after their appeal to the international court is found successful.
The automatically invoked suspension of trade would be a part of the international charter agreed to when starting trade in the first instance. It (the suspension of trade) would include those nations attempting to circumvent the automatic suspensions involved.
Diplomatic compromise for economic reasons only goes so far ....and it is this desire to compromise and ultimately finance the subsequent illegal activity that has led us to this tragic situation in Ukraine. IMO.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
I've read that phrase a lot lately.
I do not know if it is used by the ignorant, or by knaves who believe their audience to be ignorant.
That "said" : "international law" is a politicians phrase, and, as such is detached from reality.
Let us consider an inductive approach.
Here:
If I give a weapon to a person(person A) knowing that person A will use that weapon to kill person B. And, using that weapon. person A does indeed murder person B:
Then I can be held accountable for the murder of person B.
So, if we give weapons to Azov, knowing that Azov will use the weapons to kill other human beings,
Are we then responsible for the deaths so inflicted?
alternately
Is murder by proxy not still murder?
Last edited:
"International law" does actually exist, in various treaties, agreements, alliances, etc. It is how one country formally agrees to treat others. Such agreements are usually also overseen by a judicial process - e.g. where grievances can be heard, or where breaches can be judged on etc.
That depends.
First, you've slipped in "murder" as equivalent to "kill person". The two are related, but not the same: one can kill without it being murder.
Second, if you knew the person was going to murder another person with the weapon you gave them, then yes, you can - in a number of jurisdictions, but I'm not sure all - be also held accountable. However, if you simply knew that the person was going to use it to kill, and that killing was not murder - such as providing weapons for the military - then no, you would not be accountable for the killing of person B.
No. Those weapons would have been provided as part of their military involvement, for defence, security, etc. That they use them to kill in the legitimate act of defence, security, etc, does not mean the provider of the weapons is accountable for the deaths inflicted by those weapons.
If, however, the individual used those weapons for actual murder, then still, no, the provider would not be accountable, any more than the provider of a car is accountable for any deaths inflicted by someone driving that car.
Yes, in most jurisdictions. But you are deeming killing and murder to be equivalent. They are not. And therein lies the rub.
In the same way that a drunk driver feels that "dtunk driving law" is a meaningless phrase and he is immune from it. After all, he can prove it! He can get away with drunk driving for years, therefore he is immune to it.
If you sell a weapon to person A, knowing that person A will likely use that weapon to kill intruders in his home, then you cannot be held liable for his actions. He can be of course, and he MAY face criminal charges, depending on the details of the home invasion.
No. See above.