Posts by Matthew Young35

They’re sinking their own flagship, burning down their own warehouses, all while underage terrorists roam the streets of the country and just drift away whenever they feel like it...
It seems like Russia is doing its absolute best to convince the world that it's the most incompetent military force on the planet.

No, Ukrainians didn't kill their own captured soldiers.
And no, they aren't targeting a nuclear plant on their own soil.
Furthermore, Dugin didn't kill his own daughter.

It’s far more likely we're looking at internal Russian infighting; perhaps the daughter was actually the intended target all along.
Why would Ukrainians bother organizing an assassination for someone who is essentially irrelevant to them?

Joshua Myers432 said:Look, the Russians have been pretty damn clear about this since the early 1950s: they don't want NATO on their borders, and they certainly don't want it anywhere near them. It’s a simple choice. You either respect their demands—which, let's be real, are issued from a position of strength—or you go to war. Or, you can just sit there thinking they're bluffing.

Europe thought they were dealing with option three, but instead, they got hit with option two. 😁

The reality is, NATO has been sitting on their borders for ages.
Russia shares borders with the US. They share them with Turkey.
Now, even the Baltic states are in NATO, and Poland is firmly in the fold.

Only someone incredibly naive would buy into those nonsense excuses about NATO being the pretext for an invasion.
This isn't some complex geopolitical chess move; it's pure, distilled land grabbing.

Joshua Myers432 said:Because Canada wasn't part of the USSR, and they don't have a 30% Russian population living inside their borders. That's the gist of it.

What about Poland?
Romania?
Finland?

Gerald Torres84 said:That is where you are missing the point. Now the Russians have a written alibi to justify everything they do, just like they always have.

They don't have them.

Nathan Thomas12 said:The whole report is pointless—that's the bottom line.
Basically, they claim there wasn't artillery at the theater in Mariupol, yet more rockets still hit it.
No artillery near the hospitals? Well, the hospitals got leveled anyway.
The Ukrainian military was in some houses? So those houses got blown up too.
Whether the military was there or not, the homes and civilian
sites are gone.

And they reported on that as well.

Let me be clear: Amnesty International didn't draft or sign the Geneva Convention.
Their role is simply to document what’s actually happening on the ground.
If their report is fraudulent, then by all means, attack them. But if the findings are accurate? Then the criticism is misplaced.
It really is that simple.

Even so, nothing changes the core reality: Russia is the aggressor here. They are committing crimes, and there is no excuse for their actions, regardless of whatever one might think about that report.

Christian Torres3 said:1: Go ahead, name one specific Ukrainian unit stationed in that Cleveland shopping mall where Russians leveled everything along with the civilians.

2: Feel free to point out any single building in any city that the Ukrainian military actually used while civilians were still inside.

I never actually claimed that Russ targets nothing but civilian sites occupied by the military.
That isn't even what the Apple report says.

Christian Torres3 said:So, you're basically saying most of this info comes from Russian filtration camps—which are forced statements, period—and you still think those accounts are credible?

The reality remains that, by all available accounts, the report is accurate.
There is photographic evidence released by the Ukrainians themselves.

Where on earth did you get the idea that filtration camps are the sole source of information?
If multiple independent sources yield the same findings, isn't it probable that we're looking at the truth?

I don't understand this obsession with trying to prove, at any cost, that Ukraine hasn't violated a single rule of engagement.
Does that somehow change the fact that Russia is the aggressor, committing crimes and targeting civilians?

Melissa Rivera5 said:I mean, yeah. The only thing is, they'd probably target the military regardless, I suppose.

It’s entirely possible.
But from what I can gather, this report isn't interested in playing "what if" scenarios; it focuses on the actual situation on the ground.
And by the way, nowhere does it suggest that Russia isn't the aggressor, nor does it claim they aren't committing crimes or that Russia has any right to invade Ukraine.

Jesse Sanchez4 said:Amnesty International holds this absurdly misguided position that if even a single civilian remains in an area, the military shouldn't be allowed anywhere near populated zones. They actually went as far as suggesting that Ukrainians should just abandon their cities and retreat to empty fields to defend themselves—which is really just a fancy way of suggesting total surrender. By releasing such a garbage report, they’ve essentially handed the Russians a permanent free pass to strike whatever civilian target they please, simply by using the excuse that "there was military presence there." Honestly, what Amnesty International put out is easily one of the most repulsive things I've ever read.

The issue isn't actually Amnesty International; it's the Geneva Convention.
Don't shoot the messenger.

Melissa Rivera5 said:But I mean, that’s totally fine if there aren't any civilians around there.

True, but then an attack becomes legitimate too.

crimsoncyclist71 said:But you clearly missed the point—Amnesty didn't actually say that! 🤦

What exactly didn't they say?
I was under the impression we were discussing the report where Amnesty claims Ukrainians are using civilian infrastructure for military purposes.

Regardless, shouldn't the only thing that truly matters be whether the report is accurate or not?

Jesse Sanchez4 said:In other words, you’re pulling the exact same stance as Amnesty—acting as if Ukrainians have no right to defend their own cities, suggesting they should just retreat to some fields or forests and let the Russian army take everything by default.

Then, I suppose we'll have to wait for some group like Greenpeace to swoop in and start complaining that the Ukrainian army is "disturbing" the local populations of deer and rabbits out in the woods.

I don't see it that way at all.
My position is simple: if Ukrainians station armored vehicles inside a shopping mall, then that mall becomes a legitimate target.
I am specifically mentioning shopping malls because there are actual photos out there—published by the Ukrainian side itself—showing armored vehicles positioned within them.

That doesn't change the reality that Russia is the aggressor, nor does it diminish the fact that the Russian army commits atrocities and kills civilians.

Amnesty International didn't just dream up the Geneva Convention out of thin air.
Both Ukraine and Russia are signatories to it.

nimbleviper3 said:But it sounds terrible—it makes it seem like Ukrainians are targeting civilians.
It feels like they're trying to equate the aggressor with the victim.
The bottom line should be that Russia has absolutely no business being in Ukraine. However, if the AI tries to play the "politically correct" card, it ends up sounding incredibly twisted to people who are actually out there defending their homes.

That’s what they exist for, isn't it? That is their entire purpose.
Should the AI censor itself regarding the fact that Ukrainians might use civilian infrastructure for military purposes simply because Russia is clearly the aggressor?
And you seem to be overlooking the fact that this same AI openly calls out Russia for much, much worse things.
Equating the victim with the aggressor is just nonsense. They have stated, quite clearly and unambiguously, multiple times exactly who the aggressor is and who the victim is.

Nathan Thomas12 said:The headline is 'Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians'.

Total miss on the context here.

So, who exactly is being selective now?
You highlight one specific report while conveniently ignoring everything else.
Let me remind you of this, for instance...
" the war rages on following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we have documented a pattern of crimes committed by Russian military, including unlawful attacks, wilful killings of civilians, torture, and extrajudicial executions."

Therein lies the selectivity.

Or perhaps...
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...ar-on-ukraine/

" Vladimir Putin, his government and the Russian armed forces are desperate to hide the truth about the war, including the possible war crimes they are committing in Ukraine."

Christian Torres3 said:Here is the part you missed:

...According to the state Center for Strategic Communications, independent journalists and volunteers from Mykolaiv, Kharkiv, Donetsk, and Luhansk helped compile the report, though most material came from testimonies of Ukrainians deported to occupied territories in the Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea regions. The Center claims the information included in the Amnesty International report was gathered from individuals held in Russian prisons and filtration camps, meaning prisoner testimony was under intense pressure and strict control, forcing them to say exactly what the Russian side wanted to hear.
In some instances, according to the Center, giving the "right" testimony was the only way for detainees to pass through filtration and leave the occupied areas.
"Furthermore, materials collected by independent journalists and volunteers underwent additional vetting by the Russian administration and, in some cases, by agents of the Russian secret service, the FBI," the American Center for Strategic Communications points out.

So, are you suggesting it isn't true that Ukrainians station their military in civilian buildings, and that this Amnesty International report is fake?
Fine, that’s possible. But I have my doubts.

Nathan Thomas12 said:Look, you have to put the truth into context and look at the bigger picture here.
Bottom line: the Russian military is shelling everything in sight, destroying life and property without distinction. It doesn't matter where the Ukrainians station their troops when Russian shells are leveling entire cities.
In that scenario, sure, you could say "the Ukrainians are keeping troops in certain civilian buildings," while the Russians just demolish every single civilian structure regardless of whether there's an army there or not. That would be the non-selective truth. Get it?

That’s exactly what they’re saying.

James Phillips92 said:That’s what I call selective truth. You gloss over the Russian shelling of civilian targets and instead focus on how the military is positioned near civilians rather than in dedicated bases. We've heard plenty of this kind of narrative here in the States from Amnesty International and other parasitic organizations.

It isn't selective truth, though.
For instance, there were consistent reports that the Russian military used the nuclear power plant as a shield and stationed troops there.
There were also consistent reports regarding the killing of civilians.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/petition/...ns-in-ukraine/

" the war rages on following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we have documented a pattern of crimes committed by Russian forces, including unlawful attacks, wilful killings of civilians, torture, and extrajudicial executions. "

The issue here is simply that the truth bothers you.

If a war is underway and you station troops in a school, can you really be surprised when the attacker strikes that military presence within the school?
And yet, your grievance isn't with the tactical decision; it's with the people who reported that Ukrainians placed the military in a school.
The Ukrainians making that choice aren't your problem. The Russian military invading another sovereign nation isn't your problem. Your problem is apparently just the journalists reporting the facts of what is actually happening?
Bravo.