Russia - threadbanned users in OP

If you need to shout, you're already on the back foot

This seems to have been done with no fuss at all

https://youtu.be/bmmSDY-dtLY

This is a common theme with the Russian public in interviews on the street. They're convinced that the western audience is being subjected to propaganda and fake news about Russia and the war. What they don't realise is that people in the west have access to multiple news sources from many countries and can even tune in to what the Russian media are saying about the war.

Russian media coverage is shockingly threadbare by comparison - lots of stuff about the politics of the situation and the sanctions and so on but they don't wish to discuss Russian military or Ukrainian civilian losses i.e. the gruesome things you associate with a war.

Climate change, while catastrophic, will lead to the extinction of some/many species on Earth but not life as such or life as we know it. It might however lead to the extinction of humans or at least curb destructive human activity (or even cause a rethinking of humans) and, after a few million years, the planet, while somewhat different, will flourish again. However, without such catastrophic event, humans are unlikely to change their behavior and some of their activities might cause a complete extinction or, more likely, a near complete destruction of life.

The first suspect to cause this would be persistent organic pollutants. Studies show that the amount of plastic already in the environment might, once it disintegrates to nano-particles, will change the chemical composition of the environment that all, or nearly all life will become impossible.

So, if we were to disappear today, maybe only the more complex organisms will, over time, be extinct. But, if we survive another 20 years, maybe we will have produced enough plastic, chemical, bio-chemical, radioactive etc waste that will then inevitably lead to the extinction of all multicellular or just all organisms.

But of course climate change might instead prompt the civilization to produce more harmful material much faster or even destroy all life through nuclear, chemical etc war in a few days or hours. Still, it appears that without any catastrophic event we will destroy all life inescapably. (Again, eventually it will probably re-appear, but it might take billions of years and it might not be at all like the life I cherish).

As to the second point: it was just a metaphor I used in one of my previous posts and it makes much less sense taken out of context. What I meant is that the demand for artifacts blinds humans to the fact that they have nearly destroyed the basis of their existence. I absolutely did not mean to single out iPhones as being particularly harmful. I picked iPhones only because Apple was among the first to discontinue operating in Russia and is also the biggest company on the planet and i picked water because it is the most basic of the things we need. I could have just as well picked BMWs vs air.

I'll find a couple of inks to illustrate my thoughts.

Global human-made mass exceeds all living biomass | Nature

Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals – study | Wildlife | The Guardian

Just wondering in regards the video uploaded yesterday with the drone footage with the bomb falling through the sunroof of the car. What way does it work as the Russian soldiers were injured and you can make it out in the video and they were i presume going off to get medical attention and were taken out in the car and killed, the drone operator would of known this. I mean for example if it was a soldier shot and was trying to get away or heal/bandage himself and the enemy just walked over and shot him dead known perfectly well what he was doing or am I missing something with drones that they may know clearly what it happening on the ground and in that case would of known the soldiers were injured. Can they just keep up the kill factor and get them or is that a crime? Just more wondering in future wars will this be a thing, you injure an enemy with a drone and clearly see there down or trying to make there way outta the Battlefield and you finish them off still. Like I presume if you were a soldier and say you were shot and your there bandaging yourself up and a soldier came along and saw you and shot you it's a crime, is it not technically the same with a drone with the operator finishing someone off like that. Just curious on the rules as such in that scenario with drone operators.

Unless an enemy combatant is in custody or surrendering they are fair game - just because they are bandaging themselves and just as likely to shoot you doesn't mean they aren't fair game

I didn't see them raise their hands or wave a white flag

OK that's fair but I mean with drones you can be a fair bit from the front line and been attacked, it's not like you can surrender to a drone fair enough to an enemy combatant you can. I mean with a drone would you realise your getting attacked by a drone, those lads might of thought it was a mortar round or the likes. Just wonder down the line in future conflicts will there be some sort of rules be made in regards to drones with enemy that are injured. Is it going to be your injured we will finish you off even if ure limbs are blown off you or will there be rules set in place as soldiers might not realise that a drone has done the damage on them that once a drone operator sees they are injured they can't or should not engage them further. If there on about in future drones been fully AI will it just be built into them kill enemy combatants at all cost and take no prisoners even if you see some enemy soldier leaving the field of battle injured to whatever extent or on the Battlefield say more or less dying but another bomb/missile launched at him/her to finish them off for good measure.

Yeah I just thought there might be something there in regards to keep up the attack on them after them been injured and trying to evacuate themselves. I would presume some rules should be in place in regards to it especially going forward in future conflicts as drones will be an even greater role then.

Not sure if he was still armed or not, looked like it killed 3 of them. I just wonder will the rules or war in regards to drones have to be amended in regards to attacks like that in the video. Just for future conflicts if things aren't outlined properly about the way there used and grey areas sure just imagine the way they will be used by some armies down the line. Be like he didn't put his hands up after I blew his legs off and I am a mile in the sky after firing the missile at him, I can see his gun is still in his hands so I will fire another missile at him as I can say his buddy who is also injured throwing him into a van, maybe there going off to the front I can say (but really we know there going for medical attention) they have not surrendered to me. I just wonder what people if there are any on this thread who are in the military or were in it think in regards to the video after the initial attack, just wondering in regards the 2nd attack on them? What way they look at it either if was happening to them or them doing it? Does something have to be put in place for drone attacks in regards the enemy after the initial attack of they are injured? As in the future drones will be doing a hell of a lot more fighting and killing for most armies.

President Zelenskyy: "Add to cart"

😁

Russia could not attract countries to its sphere of influence therefore it justifies Nuclear war.

Is that the Incel ideology?

Putin and his cronies definitely aren’t incels that’s for sure.

Something different……

Nope, Russia is not a real country Misha Firer's answer to Putin says he's going to 'de-Nazify' Ukraine. Isn't that a bit rich when he's made Russia a fascist state and is now emulating Hitler? - Quora

Living in Ireland, I'm actually quite ok with a bit of climate change/global warming.....an extra 5 degrees throughout the year would be absolutely perfect.