*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10279
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
7 News Miami - https://wsvn.com/news/us-world/russia-unleashes-biggest-attacks-in-ukraine-in-months-at-least-11-dead/

    Russia unleashes biggest attacks in Ukraine in months; at least 11 dead

    ...

    The head of Ukraine’s law enforcement said Monday’s attacks nationwide damaged 70 infrastructure sites, of which 29 are critical. The Ukrainian General Staff said 84 cruise missiles and 24 drones were used.

11 dead, 70 infrastructure sites struck, involving 84 cruise missiles and 24 drones.

Yes, from this we can conclude that Russia was obviously targeting civilian life. ::)
« Last Edit: October 10, 2022, 09:31:46 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7098
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
I don't see any evidence that Russia was aiming for civilians.
Do you see any evidence that Russia was aiming for military targets or military infrastructure?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15662
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
I don't see any evidence that Russia was aiming for civilians.
I guess this makes sense; considering Russia's military technology and competence appear to be worse than they were during Stalin's reign, I'd be surprised if they were able to "aim" at anything.

Even Ukraine has stated that Russia was aiming for the energy infrastructure
You know, I don't think the argument of "noooo, they didn't do this particular war crime, they were clearly committing a much worse one!!!!" is the slam-dunk you're looking for.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2022, 09:52:29 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

*

Offline crutonius

  • *
  • Posts: 668
  • Just a regular guy. No funny business here.
    • View Profile
It is a fair point.  Quite a few Russian missile seem to hit rivers and open fields, sometime even exploding before they launch.  We almost don't have a way of knowing what they were actually aiming for.


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10279
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Listen to yourselves. In your hysteria you are doubling down on the claim that Russia was trying to inflict mass civilian casualty, or was aiming at nothing in particular in the cities, and are now claiming they have terrible missiles that can't aim. Yet somehow they missed the civilians and coincidentally hit 70 infrastructure sites. In the recent quotes we saw that Ukraine indicated that Russia was was attacking "the entire chain of supply" of the energy system, hitting thermal generation and electrical substations.

But no, according to the narrative made up on the spot Russia must be trying to kill, or are indifferent to the killing of civilians in mass murder, and has terrible missiles and aim. So Russia Bad!

Instead of admitting the obvious that Russia is not intending civilian casualties, we find some kind of convoluted scenario where Russia has worse weapons than the Soviet Union and the energy infrastructure struck is a coincidence. 
« Last Edit: October 10, 2022, 10:27:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15662
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
No, Tom, targeting critical civilian infrastructure is what I described as "the worse crime". The fact that they were so bad at aiming that they ended up striking playgrounds, random roads, and often just air is just the cherry on top, a funny joke at the expense of a crippled rogue state.

Your inability to read what's being said does not make your claims of hysteria better, by the way. In fact, it reminds me of the time you mistook someone's personal blog for a good source of quotes from prominent figures. Guess who comes across as hysterical. 🤔

You used to be so good at this, Tom. Drop the shitlordery and get back to what you do well.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2022, 10:32:20 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10279
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Your inability to read what's being said does not make your claims of hysteria better, by the way.

I didn't have a tough time reading what was said. This was your initial claim:

But have you considered that bombing civilians is very based and that it super-owns the libs? It's really a refreshing breath of fresh air, and it's gonna land me a 10/10 m'lady tradwife any moment now.

You claimed or strongly implied that Russia was bombing civilians.

This is your most recent claim:

Quote from: Pete Svarrior
No, Tom, targeting critical civilian infrastructure is what I described as "the worse crime". The fact that they were so bad at aiming that they ended up striking playgrounds, random roads, and often just air is just the cherry on top, a funny joke at the expense of a crippled rogue state.

You are now admitting that Russia was targeting civilian infrastructure, and only accidentally killed civilians, which is a substantially different context than the characterization thrown around in this thread recently of "bombing civilians" and "bombing playgrounds".

The philosophizing of what is a worse crime between bombing civilians or civilian infrastructure just a moving of goal posts and irrelevant to what I was responding to. Your original statement was inaccurate and I am simply pointing out to you that you are unjustly demonizing Russia based on media hype and personal feelings rather than facts.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2022, 10:51:33 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7098
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Instead of admitting the obvious that Russia is not intending civilian casualties, we find some kind of convoluted scenario where Russia has worse weapons than the Soviet Union and the energy infrastructure struck is a coincidence.
No Tom, Russia is most certainly intending civilian casualties.  The number of civilian casualties is irrelevant to the fact that it's still a terrorist attack.

Russia keeps whining about Ukraine being a bunch of terrorists for having the audacity to defend their sovereign territory, yet who is the one indiscriminately hitting civilian targets?
« Last Edit: October 10, 2022, 10:56:40 PM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15662
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
You claimed or strongly implied that Russia was bombing civilians.
So you did have difficulties understanding me - after all, no reasonable person would interpret that post quite so literally. Thank you for confirming! Crazy how these things go in the heat of the moment, especially when you're so preoccupied with defending literal acts of terror.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15662
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Speaking of shitlords clamouring for relevancy through meaningless controversy, Daddy Elon has been working very hard to fix everything:

Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3527
    • View Profile
The death toll is reported to be about 11 from missile attacks on 16 cities.

So just to try and clear up two things.

11 dead, 87 injured.

- Do the 87 injured not count and only the death toll matters?

Just to be crystal clear:

- Are you pro-Russian invasion and annexation of Ukraine? If so, why?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10279
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
So you did have difficulties understanding me - after all, no reasonable person would interpret that post quite so literally.

So you are now arguing that really knew the truth from the start that Russia wasn't purposely targeting civilians, in contradiction to your statement that they were bombing civilians, and that we shouldn't take you at your literal word. Ie. "I didn't really mean that!" Right. Nice argument.

Instead of admitting the obvious that Russia is not intending civilian casualties, we find some kind of convoluted scenario where Russia has worse weapons than the Soviet Union and the energy infrastructure struck is a coincidence.
No Tom, Russia is most certainly intending civilian casualties.  The number of civilian casualties is irrelevant to the fact that it's still a terrorist attack.

Russia keeps whining about Ukraine being a bunch of terrorists for having the audacity to defend their sovereign territory, yet who is the one indiscriminately hitting civilian targets?

Terrorism is a bit out of line considering that  there is no consensus on whether the US Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings against Japan during WWII were acts of terrorism.

It is currently argued that Ukraine's recent bridge bombing was not terrorism because the Russian military uses the bridge in addition to its normal civilian use. It is argued that anything your opponent's military uses is a valid target. Unless you are prepared to argue that the Ukrainian Military, Government, or Defense Industry does not use electricity I don't really see that you have a valid counter to that argument.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ukraines-attack-on-kerch-bridge-was-not-terrorism

« Last Edit: October 11, 2022, 07:31:36 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7098
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Terrorism is a bit out of line considering that it has there is no consensus on whether the US Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings against Japan during WWII were acts of terrorism.

terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.

Attacking residential areas in order to instill fear in the population sounds like terrorism to me.

It is currently argued that Ukraine's recent bridge bombing was not terrorism because the Russian military uses the bridge in addition to its normal civilian use. Unless you are prepared to argue that the Ukrainian Military, Government, or Defense Industry does not use electricity I don't really see that you have a valid counterargument to that argument.

Hitting infrastructure is one thing.  Hitting apartment buildings is quite another.  That is unless you want to argue that apartment complexes are fair game because soldiers need some place to sleep at night.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2022, 03:07:58 AM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10279
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Terrorism is a bit out of line considering that it has there is no consensus on whether the US Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings against Japan during WWII were acts of terrorism.

terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.

Attacking residential areas in order to instill fear in the population sounds like terrorism to me.

I would suggest you read the article I linked. Part of the Support side is that every man, woman, and child in Japan were engaged in the war effort under Total War and they were seen as military targets, rather than an unconnected population like your definition suggests. See this quote from General Curtis LeMay on why he ordered the systematic carpet bombing of Japanese cities:

    "We were going after military targets. No point in slaughtering civilians for the mere sake of slaughter. Of course there is a pretty thin veneer in Japan, but the veneer was there. It was their system of dispersal of industry. All you had to do was visit one of those targets after we'd roasted it, and see the ruins of a multitude of houses, with a drill press sticking up through the wreckage of every home. The entire population got into the act and worked to make those airplanes or munitions of war ... men, women, children. We knew we were going to kill a lot of women and kids when we burned a town. Had to be done."

If this is true, then Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be construed as strikes against military targets, as the population was directly connected to the war effort.

It is interesting that many US commanders were not entirely happy with this approach of bombing the population and designating them as military targets, however, and subsequently made significant effort to warn cities with copious leaflets preceding an impending attack.

https://www.atomicheritage.org/key-documents/warning-leaflets

    Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives.

By these actions it could also be argued that the Japanese people were given warning to evacuate and disperse, and so it was not terror. They did their best to warn and inform. They even warned them about the atomic bombs, also on that page.

Quote from: markjo
Hitting infrastructure is one thing.  Hitting apartment buildings is quite another.  That is unless you want to argue that apartment complexes are fair game because soldiers need some place to sleep at night.

Russia has bombers and missiles with very high yield. If they wanted to cause mass civilian causality they could do so. It would be crystal clear that Russia is going after civilian deaths rather than something you have to argue about. It may be the case that Russia is indifferent to civilian casualties, but it is clear that they are not going out of their way to cause it.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2022, 07:33:51 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline crutonius

  • *
  • Posts: 668
  • Just a regular guy. No funny business here.
    • View Profile

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15662
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
So you are now arguing that really knew the truth from the start
Of course, I am doing no such thing, and you are not silly enough to believe otherwise. It's such a shame that you have to resort to the "UHHHH SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS SOMETHING NOBODY SAID, NICE" line of argumentation.

Keep on tiltin' at them windmills; I'm sure everyone will realise how hysterical they are any moment now. Alternatively, let us know when you're ready to discuss reality.

It may be the case that Russia is indifferent to civilian casualties, but it is clear that they are not going out of their way to cause it.
The orcs are sounding more and more benevolent by the day!
« Last Edit: October 11, 2022, 06:58:06 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

*

Offline Tron

  • *
  • Posts: 465
    • View Profile
So, I just watched a short video of Putin saying he wants peace and end the war.  I believe him.

Once the Donbass regions were admitted into Russia then Russia has achieved it's goals in the war.   

So, here we are.  We could not stop him from acquiring anything in Ukraine.  It has happened. 

We can continue to fight, and fight, and fight, or we can try to think diplomatically.  On what terms can we agree to a ceasefire?

I don't think we are getting the Donbass regions back.  They do not want to be part of the new government of Ukraine and have been fighting for independence for a decade. 

Crimea is an interesting topic.  I'm still not comfortable with Russia's annexation of it. They did not win themselves any friends.

Before the war started in 2014, Ukraine and Russia docked there naval fleets together in Crimea.  Russia took there ships and started to return them but cited violence in Donbass would make them keep the rest of them. Although they have not been converted into the Russian fleet.

My hope is that if Russia and Ukraine can agree on a suitable form of government in Ukraine  then the possibility of Ukraine playing a bigger part in Crimea is realistic. 

I guess the alternative is to go with the Western narrative that Russia sucks, they're wrong, and do not appreciate Ukrainian free will.  And we can continue to fight until we are blue in the face and recruit all of Ukraine and anyone else to join.  It's a beautiful idea...

I just have doubts as to the absoluteness of "our" cause meaning Western-Ukrainian relations.  And I don't want to encourage an endless war in light of this.
From the surface Earth looks flat.  From space Earth looks round.  Now what?

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7213
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Why does this remind me so much of the build up before WW2?  With Germany invading nations then asking for peace if only they could keep this land....
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15662
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
So, here we are.  We could not stop him from acquiring anything in Ukraine.  It has happened.
Why? Because he said so?

Hey, Tron, I'm appointing my friend Dave as the Official Mayor of your home. I've asked Dave, the official representative for your household, if he'd like to give your house away to me. He said yes.

It has happened. Please pack your things and be ready to get out of my house by Friday.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

*

Offline Dr Van Nostrand

  • *
  • Posts: 969
  • There may be something to this 'Matrix' stuff...
    • View Profile
My hope is that if Russia and Ukraine can agree on a suitable form of government in Ukraine  then the possibility of Ukraine playing a bigger part in Crimea is realistic. 

Russia doesn't have shit to say about the government in Ukraine. It's not their country it's not their business.
 The imaginary Nazi threat to Europe is just Russia's excuse to invade. Not even the Russians believe it.

If all these former Soviet countries wanted to rejoin the Soviet Union, they would have done so already. They wouldn't need to be invaded. They wouldn't have left in the first place.

But hey, maybe it's time that that the United States dealt with the Socialist threat from Canada. We can't let them terrorize North America with their extremist government.
Round Earther patiently looking for a better deal...

If the world is flat, it means that I have been deceived by a global, multi-generational conspiracy spending trillions of dollars over hundreds of years.
If the world is round, it means that you’re just an idiot who believes stupid crap on the internet.