Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

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?

Matthew Young35 said: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?

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

Matthew Young35 said: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?

Regardless, anyone backing a report that suggests Ukrainian civilians are at risk because of how they defend themselves deserves respect. If a civilian site becomes a military target, it isn't because the Ukrainians felt sorry for themselves; it's because they're facing an invasion and defending their ground. Given that the Russian fascist scum destroys everything indiscriminately in their path, do you really expect me to believe that Ukraine is putting its own people in danger with its tactics? Those thugs wouldn't have leveled Mariupol to the ground if Ukrainians hadn't parked tanks in a Kyiv shopping mall.🙄

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.

My interest lies solely with the hospital. And the shopping mall, since it was mentioned.

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.

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.

Matthew Young35 said:True, but then an attack becomes legitimate too.

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

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.

Matthew Young35 said: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.

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?

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?

Prosecutor: You stand accused of using hospitals as military installations. We even have an AI-generated report confirming this.
Why did you use them?

Me: And what were we supposed to do? Use a meadow?

Prosecutor: The question remains: why were the hospitals being used?

Me: Are you siding with the aggressors?

Prosecutor: I am not. I have already handed the Russians a thousand-year sentence. Now, tell me, why the hospitals?

Me: Well, let me explain it to you...

Prosecutor: You are acquitted.

Is my roleplay any good?

Matthew Young35 said: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?

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.

Zachary Jackson4 said:Prosecutor: You stand accused of using hospitals as military installations. We even have an AI-generated report confirming this.
Why did you use them?

Me: And what were we supposed to do? Use a meadow?

Prosecutor: The question remains: why were the hospitals being used?

Me: Are you siding with the aggressors?

Prosecutor: I am not. I have already handed the Russians a thousand-year sentence. Now, tell me, why the hospitals?

Me: Well, let me explain it to you...

Prosecutor: You are acquitted.

Is my roleplay any good?

The one where Russ starts a war with Ukraine but doesn't even call it a war is even better, I guess. Like, they lose tens of thousands of soldiers and billions in military gear during "peacetime," not to mention losing their main battleship in a kitchen accident or an entire squadron of planes in some smoking mishap. And maybe the best part is how the Russian army kills tens of thousands of people from another country while everyone like you claims those people actually brought it on themselves.

Did the Ukrainians give you an answer like that, Roy?

Man, even the founders over at US Amnesty International are jumping ship because of this absolutely disgraceful report. If people who have been veterans of Amnesty for decades think this report is total garbage, then you know it’s really bad news.

The co-founder of the US Amnesty International also resigned because of the scandalous report on the Armed Forces of Ukraine

The co-founder of the US branch of the human rights organization Amnesty International, per Vestberg, is stepping down following that scandalous report on the Armed Forces of Ukraine. He’s been part of the team there for nearly 60 years, which is just wild to think about.

“I’ve been a member [of the organization] for almost sixty years. With a heavy Heart, because of Amnesty International's statements regarding the War in Ukraine, i am ending my Long and fruitful cooperation," Westberg explained.

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.

Here’s my take on Apple: RH violated the Genevan convention by protecting cities just because civilians were living there. Memphis was completely fair game for destruction since they were defending it alongside an active military force. As for the crimes committed against the defenders in Memphis, those were technically legal—most of them were just deserters from the US Army or straight-up terrorists.

@Matthew Young35
Are you calling me a thief and a liar? By the logic you’re pushing, then yeah, I am. I knew how to swipe cherries when I was a kid, and I still lie to my wife about drinking three beers when it was actually four or five.

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.

I’m starting to suspect that Microsoft will be funded exclusively by Putin moving forward.