Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Hobgoblin11

Comedian calls for a strict and immediate international response to the Russian bombing of the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant

https://twitter.com/AlArabiya_Brk/status/1557817184746872834

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119461632#Comment_119461632

Why do you childishly try to put down the president of Ukraine? The tweet didn’t mention his former occupation yet you do in an attempt to belittle him.

On RTE radio 1, a guest nuclear expert said there is unlikely to be a Chernobyl type accident as the Ukraine plant uses different fuel types. He did say local rivers and some kilometres around the plant could be badly damaged - and because it’s a deliberate military attack on a nuclear plant he cannot definitively say it wouldn’t be worse than that.

But, it does seem like Russia could somewhat safely terrorise the world by attacking the plant with little risk to Moscow.

dePeatrick

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119461076#Comment_119461076

I’m leaning towards a low level partisan attack that got real lucky.

jmreire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119461877#Comment_119461877

if it happens that the powerplant takes a direct destructive hit from the Russian's, then all restrictions regarding retaliation should be off the table, including massive strikes against all Russians on the territory of Ukraine by NATO, and that includes Crimea.

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119461936#Comment_119461936

Should just send in the Turks. Remember WW3 over them shooting a Russian jet down.

rogber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119461936#Comment_119461936

Jesus, nearly half a year into this nightmare and still entertaining fantasies that NATO will launch a full scale attack on Russian forces? Wake up, it's not going to happen no matter what, the assistance will remain indirect but effective, as it is now.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119461996#Comment_119461996

There's a threshold for every scenario, been lots of time for NATO allies to consider and work out plans. As long as the conflict is limited to 'conventional means' I think you're right, just be indirect assistance. Any sort of nuclear escalation though would surely be a threshold for greater intervention. Or possibly some devastating chemical or biological attack. Surely the Russian military know what these boundaries are as well and how far they can push it.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119459539#Comment_119459539

This is proper 'reds-under-the-bed' stuff.

Amnesty holding both sides to the same standard is actually Russia pushing Amnesty to make Ukraine look bad - but yet Amnesty are still calling out Russia and have been banned from the country. 🤔 Sounds more like a delusion on your part

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119461877#Comment_119461877

Why would Russia shell a power plant that they occupy 100%?

The line of conflict is nowhere near the plant either

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462228#Comment_119462228

Why did they dig up the ground around Chernobyl ?

TheValeyard

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462228#Comment_119462228

Well, they did blow up their own prison.

And a couple of decades ago Putin did blow up apartment blocks in Moscow to blame others.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462271#Comment_119462271

To set up a defensive position I presume.

You dont defend a position by shelling it though - very different to whats allegedly happening now.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462277#Comment_119462277

What do they gain from shelling their own nuclear plant? A plant they are relying on to power occupied Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions.

Some people said its blackmail - if its blackmail then where are the demands? Where are the threats? How can they hope to blackmail and gain something if they arent even demanding anything or claiming they are responsible?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462208#Comment_119462208

Amnesty holding both sides to the same standard

I presume Ukraine were launching an invasion of another country from those areas documented by Amnesty and not defending their country from invasion?

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462324#Comment_119462324

Do you believe that defending territory gives you permission to ignore Article 8 on definition of war crimes?

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml

zv2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462277#Comment_119462277

He murdered his way to power and is still murdering.

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462429#Comment_119462429

I would be embarrassed linking to un and war crimes at this stage. Did amnesty ask the Ukrainian civilians if they had a problem with the troops and weapons ? Should cities villages towns remain unguarded let invaders just roll in.

Dyr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462429#Comment_119462429

You might want to give brief explanation of where Ukraine breached article 8, while also defending Russia for witdrawing from various protocols of the Geneva convention.

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462483#Comment_119462483

They should send that Article to a certain embassy. I wager I would be able to hear their laughter from here. Only one group committing war crimes.

jackboy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462228#Comment_119462228

There was a military expert on TV yesterday who said that the Russians were firing artillery from the nuclear plant area. The Ukrainians fired back to take out the Russian artillery. That’s how the plant was hit.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462429#Comment_119462429

Do you believe defending your territory using whatever means you can is the "same standard" as a brutal invasion of another country with indiscriminate shelling and bombing of residential areas?

This is not a war over disputed territory, it is an invasion of a soverign state. "Same Standard" does not in any way apply. But even so, how many of the below are vbeing breached by either side, if we want to look at the "same standard". For comparison purposes I have highlighted those that have definitively been breached by the invaders. But but, you know, both sides

For the purpose of this Statute, ‘war crimes’ means:

1. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
   1. Wilful killing
   2. Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
   3. Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
   4. Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
   5. Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;
   6. Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
   7. Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
   8. Taking of hostages.
2. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
   1. Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
   2. Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
   3. Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
   4. Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
   5. Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
   6. Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
   7. Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
   8. The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
   9. Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;
   10. Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;
   11. Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
   12. Declaring that no quarter will be given;
   13. Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
   14. Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;
   15. Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war;
   16. Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;
   17. Employing poison or poisoned weapons;
   18. Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;
   19. Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;
   20. Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;
   21. Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
   22. Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;
   23. Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;
   24. Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;
   25. Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;
   26. Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.

deadduck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462527#Comment_119462527

i couldn't understand why they would be shelling a plant they 100% control either, but then it was mentioned that they are shelling the outgoing powerlines in an extremely crude method of disconnecting the plant from the main Ukraine grid, with a view to reconnecting it to Russia/Russian occupied territory. seems nuts, but given they haven't shown themselves the brightest bunch, i think it's quite possible

edit: a link to at least one article regarding the above: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-russian-shelling-hit-power-line-nuclear-power-plant-2022-08-05/

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462533#Comment_119462533

Everyone knows that Russia has committed loads of war crimes, there is no dispute about that.

But the fact that Russia has done bad things does not absolve the Ukrainians from doing similar bad things.

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462626#Comment_119462626

Odd that amnesty has back peddled on it though don't you think ? Resignations the whole shebang. I could be wrong But Not monitoring the UN much, Not a peep out of them about this ? Stand to be corrected ofc.

firemansam4

The people both siding the amnesty report are really not taking into account the context the damage this report has done.

For a start it has played a blinder for Russian propaganda. Yes you could say amnesty has criticised Russia too on several occasions, but where do you hear about this in the media? you have to actively seek out these reports criticising Russia. Russia dont care about the criticism against them, but them will damn well use the report against Ukraine as much as possible too push their propaganda.

So the report criticises weapons being near civilian populations, would they prefer ukraine to leave them all out in an open field for Russia to target and destroy?

Where is the amnesty report against gaza or Palestinian insurgents who have far more blatantly put civilians in harms way?

Also their are questions about some of the sources they used to make up this report, talk of Russia hand picking witnesses to make up this report, although this talk as far as I can see has not been bourne out by any evidence as of yet.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462706#Comment_119462706

Yes you could say amnesty has criticised Russia too on several occasions, but where do you hear about this in the media? you have to actively seek out these reports criticising Russia.

Eh? are you living under a rock?

Every day there are articles about russian warcrimes in western media. Its headline news for months about the latest russian attack etc, russian warcrimes, bucha, mariupol, vinnytsia, etc etc.

Do you live in a cabin in the woods?

xxxxxxl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462744#Comment_119462744

Amnesty must. They must have said a lot of things about this have you a link ?

zv2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462599#Comment_119462599

They could shell the plant purely for the purpose of blaming the Ukrainians. False flag operation.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462208#Comment_119462208

Russia doesn't care about Amnesty and what they say about them. They just want less support for Ukraine and if this means they need to go to an organization which they otherwise despise then that's what they'll do. It's not a delusion, I just know them better.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119462626#Comment_119462626

What is a defending army supposed to do when under threat? Gather in the middle of a field for annihilation? No war crimes at all would exist without the illegal and immoral invasion.

Now can you tell how Ukraine could even attempt to mount a defense and protect their citizens against the tactics employed by Russia without deploying forces in built up areas?

If this was to move from an invasion to occupation at some point, and the remnants of the Ukrainian military and civilian supporters mounted an insurgency, many of you guys would still be both sidesing and probably referring to insurgents as terrorists