RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:I’m no expert but this seems, erm, ill-thought-out.

Also seems a bit of an impossible situation…

Mellsblue wrote:I’m no expert but this seems, erm, ill-thought-out.

I'd be interested in the source.
It's not like Amnesty never gets suckered in by propaganda after all - which in no way means that it isn't true, or terrible if it is true.

Mellsblue wrote:I’m no expert but this seems, erm, ill-thought-out.

For clarity, I’m saying this is ill-thought-out by Amnesty International.

Mellsblue wrote: For clarity, I’m saying this is ill-thought-out by Amnesty International.

Fair, and clarity probably was required.

Though I think the subsequent comments were past you, rather than to you.

Mellsblue wrote:I’m no expert but this seems, erm, ill-thought-out.

Shockingly enough, Amnesty, that is what happens when someone invades a country and takes over populated residential cities. I can hardly think Ukraine is doing it on purpose to use human shields, given that the Russian military has amply demonstrated how few fucks they give over murdering civilians, so I'd imagine this is just what happens when you attempt to retake populated areas of your country that someone else invaded.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I’m no expert but this seems, erm, ill-thought-out.

Shockingly enough, Amnesty, that is what happens when someone invades a country and takes over populated residential cities. I can hardly think Ukraine is doing it on purpose to use human shields, given that the Russian military has amply demonstrated how few fucks they give over murdering civilians, so I'd imagine this is just what happens when you attempt to retake populated areas of your country that someone else invaded.

Puja

OK, technically putting military targets in civilian areas and thus exposing non-combatants to harm is a war crime, Amnesty are right there (assuming that this has been deliberate and the use of civilian buildings has been done before the civilians moved out). BUT, when you look at the Ukraine invasion as a whole, there is clearly one side that is doing its best to play by the rules of armed conflict and the other is hell bent on near genocide. Giving the latter any form of moral cover by blaming Ukraine is incredibly naive at best.

The laws of armed conflict are great in theory, but some are almost impossible to adhere to. Fighting in built up areas makes the risk of collateral damage very high even when precision is attempted, and hard to avoid putting legitimate military targets next to non-combatants.

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I’m no expert but this seems, erm, ill-thought-out.

Shockingly enough, Amnesty, that is what happens when someone invades a country and takes over populated residential cities. I can hardly think Ukraine is doing it on purpose to use human shields, given that the Russian military has amply demonstrated how few fucks they give over murdering civilians, so I'd imagine this is just what happens when you attempt to retake populated areas of your country that someone else invaded.

Puja

OK, technically putting military targets in civilian areas and thus exposing non-combatants to harm is a war crime, Amnesty are right there (assuming that this has been deliberate and the use of civilian buildings has been done before the civilians moved out). BUT, when you look at the Ukraine invasion as a whole, there is clearly one side that is doing its best to play by the rules of armed conflict and the other is hell bent on near genocide. Giving the latter any form of moral cover by blaming Ukraine is incredibly naive at best.

The laws of armed conflict are great in theory, but some are almost impossible to adhere to. Fighting in built up areas makes the risk of collateral damage very high even when precision is attempted, and hard to avoid putting legitimate military targets next to non-combatants.

Was reading an article on this today and the point made was that yes, schools are being used as bases, but children have not been physically attending school in Ukraine since the invasion began, and right now the schools are empty buildings with excellent transport links, lots of interlinked, well-laid out space, and multiple bathrooms. Some form of discretion has to be used by the people making these judgements on war-crimes.

Can't help but feel that Amnesty are trying to do a Kier Starmer-esque pre-emptive block on criticism that they're not being neutral by showing that they are looking at both sides and aren't just commenting on Russian atrocities, and they've just massively misunderstood how much of a blunder that is.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
Shockingly enough, Amnesty, that is what happens when someone invades a country and takes over populated residential cities. I can hardly think Ukraine is doing it on purpose to use human shields, given that the Russian military has amply demonstrated how few fucks they give over murdering civilians, so I'd imagine this is just what happens when you attempt to retake populated areas of your country that someone else invaded.

Puja

OK, technically putting military targets in civilian areas and thus exposing non-combatants to harm is a war crime, Amnesty are right there (assuming that this has been deliberate and the use of civilian buildings has been done before the civilians moved out). BUT, when you look at the Ukraine invasion as a whole, there is clearly one side that is doing its best to play by the rules of armed conflict and the other is hell bent on near genocide. Giving the latter any form of moral cover by blaming Ukraine is incredibly naive at best.

The laws of armed conflict are great in theory, but some are almost impossible to adhere to. Fighting in built up areas makes the risk of collateral damage very high even when precision is attempted, and hard to avoid putting legitimate military targets next to non-combatants.

Was reading an article on this today and the point made was that yes, schools are being used as bases, but children have not been physically attending school in Ukraine since the invasion began, and right now the schools are empty buildings with excellent transport links, lots of interlinked, well-laid out space, and multiple bathrooms. Some form of discretion has to be used by the people making these judgements on war-crimes.

Can't help but feel that Amnesty are trying to do a Kier Starmer-esque pre-emptive block on criticism that they're not being neutral by showing that they are looking at both sides and aren't just commenting on Russian atrocities, and they've just massively misunderstood how much of a blunder that is.

Puja

I think Amnesty have commented on Russian atrocities, quite a few times. This one stands out because its criticism of Ukraine. And there is a huge difference in using an empty school as a HQ and sheltering your HQ in a school filled with kids. Its very likely in an urban environment that Ukraininan armed forces have been operating near non combatants - without evacuating civilians thats always going to happen. But I think you have hit the nail on the head, Amnesty want to be seen to be neutral, even one sides crimes are so manifestly disproportionate to the others.

It’s also a gift to Russia’s disinformation campaign. They can now attack any building/infrastructure the like and just say it was a military operation as the Amnesty International have already shown.
Also, there’s no need to be neutral when one country invaded another with absolute zero provocation.

Mellsblue wrote:It’s also a gift to Russia’s disinformation campaign. They can now attack any building/infrastructure the like and just say it was a military operation as the Amnesty International have already shown.
Also, there’s no need to be neutral when one country invaded another with absolute zero provocation.

Exactly this.

Mellsblue wrote:It’s also a gift to Russia’s disinformation campaign. They can now attack any building/infrastructure the like and just say it was a military operation as the Amnesty International have already shown.
Also, there’s no need to be neutral when one country invaded another with absolute zero provocation.

As you said:
Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:It’s also a gift to Russia’s disinformation campaign. They can now attack any building/infrastructure the like and just say it was a military operation as the Amnesty International have already shown.
Also, there’s no need to be neutral when one country invaded another with absolute zero provocation.

As you said:

FZdoaT9XEAEtfyW.jpeg

Puja

Fecking clueless. Or totally in bed with anyone who is anti west. Not sure which but they have given the Russians a propaganda boost.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:It’s also a gift to Russia’s disinformation campaign. They can now attack any building/infrastructure the like and just say it was a military operation as the Amnesty International have already shown.
Also, there’s no need to be neutral when one country invaded another with absolute zero provocation.

As you said:

FZdoaT9XEAEtfyW.jpeg

Puja

Assuming that Amnesty International have got the law right, and that Ukraine has breached International humanitarian law, then - though I say it through clenched teeth - I think they're correct to raise this.

AI are in Ukraine to investigate possible breaches of International humanitarian law, war crimes etc. So if they find that Ukraine has been breaking the rules, what credibility would they have if they ignored it? It's not for them to decide who the good guys and bad guys are, they have a specific role and that requires, amongst other things, neutrality.

It's for Ukraine to decide what tactics to employ, and what short or long term cost and benefits ensue. Maybe what they're doing is justified from some viewpoint, but that's not for AI to decide.

On a positive note, AI are far more critical of Russia than Ukraine (obviously), and so the fact that Russia is using AI as a credible source for their PR will make it harder for them to disregard AI when they highlight Russia's crimes.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ ... n-ukraine/

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:It’s also a gift to Russia’s disinformation campaign. They can now attack any building/infrastructure the like and just say it was a military operation as the Amnesty International have already shown.
Also, there’s no need to be neutral when one country invaded another with absolute zero provocation.

As you said:

FZdoaT9XEAEtfyW.jpeg

Puja

Assuming that Amnesty International have got the law right, and that Ukraine has breached International humanitarian law, then - though I say it through clenched teeth - I think they're correct to raise this.

AI are in Ukraine to investigate possible breaches of International humanitarian law, war crimes etc. So if they find that Ukraine has been breaking the rules, what credibility would they have if they ignored it? It's not for them to decide who the good guys and bad guys are, they have a specific role and that requires, amongst other things, neutrality.

It's for Ukraine to decide what tactics to employ, and what short or long term cost and benefits ensue. Maybe what they're doing is justified from some viewpoint, but that's not for AI to decide.

On a positive note, AI are far more critical of Russia than Ukraine (obviously), and so the fact that Russia is using AI as a credible source for their PR will make it harder for them to disregard AI when they highlight Russia's crimes.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ ... n-ukraine/

The basic definition of protected persons under the fourth Geneva Convention is the following:
"Protected persons" are civilians who find themselves in the hands of a party to the conflict of which they are not nationals.
https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/protected-persons

Therefore Ukrainian citizens in the hands of Ukrainian authorities seem not to (need to) be protected under the laws of war.

Zhivago wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:
As you said:

FZdoaT9XEAEtfyW.jpeg

Puja

Assuming that Amnesty International have got the law right, and that Ukraine has breached International humanitarian law, then - though I say it through clenched teeth - I think they're correct to raise this.

AI are in Ukraine to investigate possible breaches of International humanitarian law, war crimes etc. So if they find that Ukraine has been breaking the rules, what credibility would they have if they ignored it? It's not for them to decide who the good guys and bad guys are, they have a specific role and that requires, amongst other things, neutrality.

It's for Ukraine to decide what tactics to employ, and what short or long term cost and benefits ensue. Maybe what they're doing is justified from some viewpoint, but that's not for AI to decide.

On a positive note, AI are far more critical of Russia than Ukraine (obviously), and so the fact that Russia is using AI as a credible source for their PR will make it harder for them to disregard AI when they highlight Russia's crimes.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ ... n-ukraine/

The basic definition of protected persons under the fourth Geneva Convention is the following:
"Protected persons" are civilians who find themselves in the hands of a party to the conflict of which they are not nationals.
https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/protected-persons

Therefore Ukrainian citizens in the hands of Ukrainian authorities seem not to (need to) be protected under the laws of war.

Do you think that means they're not protected by international humanitarian law? (I'm no expert on this)

Anyway, my point is that - assuming there IS a breach of international humanitarian law - Amnesty are correct to raise this. If they've got the law wrong (which would be a bit of a shocker for AI) obviously they've made a disastrous mistake.

Mellsblue wrote:

This bloke is a UN war crime investigator.

Regarding the report, Ukrainian news is claiming

Amnesty International used the "testimonies" of people who were in prisons or filtration camps in the temporarily occupied territories

Scandalous if so

Of course, Kiev not taking responsibility for this..
Not sure if it's HIMARS or saboteurs.Alot of damage apparently.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/lo ... 022-08-09/

Galfon wrote:Of course, Kiev not taking responsibility for this..
Not sure if it's HIMARS or saboteurs.Alot of damage apparently.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/lo ... 022-08-09/

Lots of ammo destroyed and apparently at least 9 planes. Most likely Su-24. Costing the Russian Federation hundreds of millions of dollars in damage.

Mellsblue wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

This bloke is a UN war crime investigator.

That’s kind of how I see it based on everything I’ve ever been taught in pre deployment training.

The bit about protected peoples is interesting and it should be remember that there is an assumption that the defending side would want to keep their population safe whereas the invading force would have fewer concerns. But then there’s the crimes against humanity which do cover the abuse of one’s own population.

Zhivago wrote:

Galfon wrote:Of course, Kiev not taking responsibility for this..
Not sure if it's HIMARS or saboteurs.Alot of damage apparently.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/lo ... 022-08-09/

Lots of ammo destroyed and apparently at least 9 planes. Most likely Su-24. Costing the Russian Federation hundreds of millions of dollars in damage.

Russians, and Belorussians, really struggling with cigarette induced fires and other basic accidents.

worth a read
https://ricochet.com/1214468/finnish-in ... n-mindset/

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

This bloke is a UN war crime investigator.

That’s kind of how I see it based on everything I’ve ever been taught in pre deployment training.

The bit about protected peoples is interesting and it should be remember that there is an assumption that the defending side would want to keep their population safe whereas the invading force would have fewer concerns.But then there’s the crimes against humanity which do cover the abuse of one’s own population.

Is that a euphemism for actively commits atrocities to terrorise and subjugate?

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Galfon wrote:Of course, Kiev not taking responsibility for this..
Not sure if it's HIMARS or saboteurs.Alot of damage apparently.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/lo ... 022-08-09/

Lots of ammo destroyed and apparently at least 9 planes. Most likely Su-24. Costing the Russian Federation hundreds of millions of dollars in damage.

Russians, and Belorussians, really struggling with cigarette induced fires and other basic accidents.

Smoking kills.

Puja