Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
bris said:
Thats probably just put a target on his back.
Click to expand...
Sneaky enough move by the Russians. Makes the rest of Europe, again, say wtf to Orban which could force him closer to Moscow if things are made difficult for him at home.

Lord-Jaffa said:
Genius take there, guess you're fine with NATO weapons killing civilians.
Click to expand...
Are those separatists using nato weapons?! Hope you’re not referring to that photo op of two intact hummers in huge craters!
Also, where have the civilians been targeted? Unless you mean where the Russians have launched artillery into villages those Russian separatists went into…
 
Dis86 said:
Yep I do. So gonna answer?
Click to expand...

It's more a philosophical question with no exact answer to be fair.

Just reading an article that highlights the ambiguities

Whom can you fight?​

Whom can you fight?​

The practical question is this: "Is it immoral to kill civilians in war?"

An issue of growing importance​

This question has become more important during the last 100 years because a century ago most people killed in wars were professionals.

  • At the beginning of the twentieth century only 10%-15% of those who died in war were civilians.
  • In World War 2 more than 50% of those who died were civilians.
  • By the end of the century over 75% of those killed in war were civilians.

The general rule​

The general rule is that only those people fighting you are legitimate targets of attack. Those who are not fighting should not be attacked as this would violate their human rights.

The Geneva Convention lays down that civilians are not to be subject to attack. This includes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks against areas in which civilians are present.

This can be developed into two principles:

  • it is unjust to attack non-combatants
  • it is unjust to attack indiscriminately, as non-combatants may be killed

Who is, and who is not a combatant?​

While there is general agreement that only combatants are legitimate targets, the issue of who actually is a combatant is much less clear.

Definitely combatants​

  • members of military forces
  • members of guerrilla forces (even though not in uniform)
  • anyone who takes up arms in the conflict, other than in direct self-defence

Definitely non-combatants​

  • all citizens of neutral countries
    • unless they do something incompatible with their neutral status - like fighting for one of the armies involved in the conflict as a mercenary soldier
  • the old and the sick
  • children
    • but children were historically used as combatants, e.g. the "powder monkeys" in warships in the days of sail
    • child soldiers are becoming more common in terrorist conflicts and third world armies
    • International conventions specify that countries should not allow children under 15 to participate in hostilities or to be recruited into the armed forces.

Probably non-combatants​

  • soldiers who have been wounded or who have surrendered
    • this hasn't always been so - armies used to make a point of butchering enemy wounded or those who surrendered
    • although soldiers who surrender shouldn't be killed, it's quite legitimate to make them prisoners so that they can't attack you again
  • military personnel clearly identified as having specifically non-combatant roles such as medical staff and chaplains
    • such personnel are often injured or killed because their job takes them into the most dangerous parts of the battle

Probably non-combatants, but...​

  • Civilians whose work keeps the country alive - farmers, miners, transport workers, and so on should not be treated as combatants, even though their work also supports those who are involved in waging war.

May well be regarded as combatants​

  • civilians who are helping the war effort - these are people working to supply the troops and to provide them with weapons or helping in other ways. They aren't combatants in the sense of bearing arms, but they are an essential part of the war machine and constitute a threat to the other side.
Some philosophers say that there are no non-combatants in war, and that every citizen of an enemy state is a legitimate target.
Click to expand...

The last 2 points cover the issues of civilians working in the war effort, directly and indirectly
 
Lord-Jaffa said:
It's a completely misguided escalation and moves the narrative from just defending your own country, even worse is that it's weapons supplied by the UK killing Russian civilians. Best hope they don't decide to retaliate in the years to come.
Click to expand...


You seem very happy to tie Ukrainian hands behind their backs. So they can't attempt to hit targets in Russia that are helping with the Russian war effort in case civilians might get hurt. Russia is the aggressor here, it started a war, it has bombed, raped and murdered its way across Ukraine. Ukraine isn't targeting civilians unlike Russia but if some civilians die as collateral damage from targets being hit its not good but Russia could end it today, their leaders choose not to however. If Russian civilians aren't happy with war coming to them they should march on the Kremlin.

You also seem to forget that Russia has already killed in our country, they used chemical weapons with zero thought to our civilians, they murdered our civilians and left others with life changing injuries. They also used radioactive materials to murder here, again with no thought to any collateral damage. So save your crocodile tears for Russia.
 
Last edited:
Dis86 said:
What about the accommodation facilities for said arms workers? Or perhaps the mass-transit system they're commuting on?
Click to expand...

You do realise there's decades of serious discussion and law on this, right? Go and look it up.

The accepted answers there are: no, and probably. Mass-transit systems can be targetted if they're used to transport arms or soldiers but not if they're only used by civilians.
 
After things like the firebombing of German cities in WW2 people do in general try to officially keep civilians out of it, but unfortunately in a war unpleasant things will always happen.
As much as I don't like to see innocent people on any side killed, it's also not exactly fair to expect one side in a conflict to fight with one arm tied behind its back.
Why are attacks on Russia seen as terrorism, but attacks on Ukraine not for some people?
 
On the one side you have a nation that sees all life of the other side as viable murder targets, including kids. The action is offensive, without provocation.

On the other side you have a nation that targets military and close military suppliers. It’s actions are to defeat the offensive against it’s state and citizens.

Although all war only rewards war, everyone and the nation has the right to defend itself against against aggression.

Seems defendable in my opinon.
 
Lord-Jaffa said:
Genius take there, guess you're fine with NATO weapons killing civilians.
Click to expand...

You should be happy that NATO are supplying weapons, that have a track record of great precision. I don't get the impression that Ukraine have enough of these to frivolously waste them killing random civilians.

Targetting civilians has on multiple occasions proven to be ineffective and only more likely to increase the populations resolve to fight as well as eroding international opinion.
 
Uther said:
After things like the firebombing of German cities in WW2 people do in general try to officially keep civilians out of it, but unfortunately in a war unpleasant things will always happen.
As much as I don't like to see innocent people on any side killed, it's also not exactly fair to expect one side in a conflict to fight with one arm tied behind its back.
Why are attacks on Russia seen as terrorism, but attacks on Ukraine not for some people?
Click to expand...
Reminds me Dam Busters mission.

1000+ German civilians died due to the dam bursting, but the impact on the actual war production was minimal.
 

Hundreds of bomb shelters 'unsuitable' or closed in Ukraine​

''A review of 4,800 shelters found approximately 20% were "not suitable for use" and 252 were closed, said interior minister Ihor Klymenko.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy ordered a complete audit after a woman was allegedly killed while trying to enter a closed shelter on Thursday.
Four people have been detained in a criminal probe into the death, Kyiv regional prosecutor’s office said.
A security guard who had failed to unlock the doors, remained under arrest, while three others, including a local official, had been put under house arrest, it said.
The suspects face up to eight years in prison for official negligence that led to a person's death.
Kyiv mayor Vitali Klitschko said city authorities have received "more than a thousand" complaints regarding locked, dilapidated or insufficient air-raid shelters within a day of launching an online feedback service. ''
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom