Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

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."

Matthew Young35 said: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."

I'm talking about the headline itself—you can't honestly tell me the title isn't selective.
It's like if some creep shows up at the beach and starts terrorizing your kids, but the news runs a headline saying 'Matthew Young35 endangered his children by waving a knife on the beach.' Something like that. Get the context?

Matthew Young35 said: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.

I think you need to go back and actually read what the article says a few more times.

George Robinson43 said:The point being made here is about the ethnic cleansing and mass deportations used to Russify Crimea.
The Tatars living there today are essentially just the remnants of what once was a much larger population.

I'm not even going that far though. Looking at everything from 2010 onwards, it feels like the Russians had plenty of support back then, and by that point, the Tatars had already become almost irrelevant...

wearyraven25 said:I'm not even going that far though. Looking at everything from 2010 onwards, it feels like the Russians had plenty of support back then, and by that point, the Tatars had already become almost irrelevant...

The Tatars have been largely sidelined for about a century now, but if we're being strictly honest, they became completely inconsequential following those mass deportations back in the 1940s.

Not to mention, there were plenty of pro-Russian elements causing absolute chaos as early as the beginning of the 1990s.

A substantial portion of the local population was formally tied to the Russian Federation anyway—not just because of shared language or certain political leanings, but due to the sheer presence and influence of the Black Sea Fleet.

By the way, speaking of the Black Sea Fleet... the whole messy business regarding how it was divided up remains one of those long-forgotten, utterly disgraceful affairs, wouldn't you agree?

steelheron25 said:The Tatars have been largely sidelined for about a century now, but if we're being strictly honest, they became completely inconsequential following those mass deportations back in the 1940s.

Not to mention, there were plenty of pro-Russian elements causing absolute chaos as early as the beginning of the 1990s.

A substantial portion of the local population was formally tied to the Russian Federation anyway—not just because of shared language or certain political leanings, but due to the sheer presence and influence of the Black Sea Fleet.

By the way, speaking of the Black Sea Fleet... the whole messy business regarding how it was divided up remains one of those long-forgotten, utterly disgraceful affairs, wouldn't you agree?

In 2013, the Tatar population sat at approximately 280,000, which accounts for about 13% of the population; therefore, I find it impossible to agree with the notion that they are irrelevant.

https://www.ukr.net/news/details/criminal/92691527.html

There is far too much information being leaked to the press. Some strategic data has been compromised.

Matthew Young35 said:That’s exactly what they’re saying.

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.

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.

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.

It’s honestly pretty much the same everywhere, and it really bugs me. Like, if someone jumps you on a street corner in the US, the Department of Justice might end up penalizing both parties for disturbing the peace. Or if you're dealing with a bully at school, sometimes the administration ends up punishing the kid who was actually being targeted just because they fought back, saying "well, all violence is the same." So, from childhood through school, and even with adults and the DOJ or international politics—there's this systemic way of treating the victim and the aggressor as if they're equals.

Matthew Young35 said: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.

They absolutely do, man, but that stuff just gets buried in the rest of the report.
If I can share my personal take, I believe Ukrainians have every right to do this. They are defending themselves against a far superior force, and no one should be criticizing them for that.

What kind of judicial conduct should we expect once this matter actually reaches trial?

You are victims; you can leave immediately.

You are victims, and while we will take that into account, we will proceed with the trial regardless.

...

Melissa Rivera5 said:It’s honestly pretty much the same everywhere, and it really bugs me. Like, if someone jumps you on a street corner in the US, the Department of Justice might end up penalizing both parties for disturbing the peace. Or if you're dealing with a bully at school, sometimes the administration ends up punishing the kid who was actually being targeted just because they fought back, saying "well, all violence is the same." So, from childhood through school, and even with adults and the DOJ or international politics—there's this systemic way of treating the victim and the aggressor as if they're equals.

Oh, man, 🙏
this is the most embarrassing part of it all. You aren't even allowed to defend yourself against an aggressor without facing a report.
So what am I supposed to do? Just stand there and let them beat me into the ground, and then call the authorities only once I’ve actually survived?

Zachary Jackson4 said:What kind of judicial conduct should we expect once this matter actually reaches trial?

You are victims; you can leave immediately.

You are victims, and while we will take that into account, we will proceed with the trial regardless.

I guess it really depends on which state you're in. In some places, you could pretty much lose it and bash an attacker's brains out and the court might just let you walk, assuming it even gets to court—and in some states, it wouldn't even go that far because you have a right to self-defense (which isn't really the case here in America).

nimbleviper3 said:Oh, man, 🙏
this is the most embarrassing part of it all. You aren't even allowed to defend yourself against an aggressor without facing a report.
So what am I supposed to do? Just stand there and let them beat me into the ground, and then call the authorities only once I’ve actually survived?

Yeah. Maybe you have the right to try and run or defend yourself, but only passively, like you're hitting a shield or something. If you somehow trap them in a room using a trick or whatever, you might actually end up in a worse spot because then you've technically committed kidnapping or unlawful imprisonment.

Melissa Rivera5, you clearly aren't following this discussion. Did they spill the Russian army's brains on the floor?

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

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.

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.

Matthew Young35 said: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.

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