Matata
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2020
- Messages
- 3,424
How is someone's opinion accepted as given? you can share peoples opinions or disagree, up to you. There is so much info coming from the front and the aggressors that checking twitter is the fastest way to hear about stuff happening, it's the readers choice to follow on it or ignore it.Not at all. So much crap posted from Twitter feeds, that are put forward and accepted as given.
Maybe go and find out. Look at the tweet I quoted. It provides an insight to how the concept of human shields is judged.
Yeah, that is the Kremlin's official statement. Although Kremlin doesn't appear to state how the explosions happened.
This is what more weapons get you.
No.. This is what happens when a bunch of mass murdering fscking savages invade your country...This is what more weapons get you.
No, this (from 2015).
Theft and corruption are commom everywhere, but none of the former Eastern Bloc countries did it to a crippling effect. Also, over the years, they were able to stop this - prior to joining the EU 6 year later.
You would need proof of intention. Civilians caught in the cross fire <> human shields.
Knowingly taking cover in an area occupied by civilians with the intent of maximizing civilian casualties or with the intent of providing civilian obstructions, calculating that the enemy will not actively engage you = human shields.
A human shield for protection is only effective if you are dealing with an enemy that will not fire at you or your location in order to minimize civilian casualties. A human shield for maximizing civilian casualties is what you would do if you are certain your enemy will fire on your location regardless.
One would need to prove intent though to determine which of the three is the case.
So cute when you try to be clever...I am sorry to tell you, if any military personal / setup anything next to any civilian infrastructural, the intention is to set a hit-back target. that is already enough for me to define that is a human shield. the purpose is so clear from ukraine. if russia knew there were civilians and avoided to target then ukraine would use the place to kill russians. if not, ukraine would accuse russia violated human rights / international laws for targeting civilians. head you win, tail I lose, right?
ukraine is still not evil enough? you still want to help them?
by that definition NEITHER has Russia, duhIf you actually bothered, you would see that Amnesty International explicitly clarified that Ukraine has not used any civilians as human shields.
Ukraine's military gone, rampant corruption leaked documents reveal | Redacted with Clayton Morris
by that dentition NEITHER has Russia