mr.WHO wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Aug 22, 16:32
I don't hear reports of Russia doing such things?
I don't know.
Why indeed?
mr.WHO wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Aug 22, 16:32
Mariupol bombed to ruins, Bucha, daily shelling of Kharkiv?
So what? There were, just for a minute, enemy soldiers in the city of Mariupol. What do you suggest to do about enemies putting up a fight inside a city? Bomb them with roses?
Besides, for a "bombed to ruins" city,
Mariupol is surprisingly whole. Some parts of the city were not devastated, some buildings remain standing.
And what about Kharkiv? It is under Ukrainian control. There are Ukrainian forces in the city (as AI has proved); they are valid targets.
mr.WHO wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Aug 22, 16:32
After these, adding a bombing of random school in the middle of dense city block would not be even worth mentioning.
Agreed, too tiresome.
Operating on the "Russia is constantly bombing all the schools" assumption without any evidence is way easier.
mr.WHO wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Aug 22, 16:32
Any difference then shelling of Kharkiv? other than having (an evacuated) school full of soldiers?
I'm sorry, I don't get it. What is different than shelling an evacuated school full of soldiers in Kharkiv?
mr.WHO wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Aug 22, 16:32
I'm not even considering something insane, like filling the school full of children and getting it bombed - something like this would be rudiculous and would get a question - why it hasn't been evacuated? It would smell like a set-up from mile away.
Yes, yes it would. let's hope it won't come to this.
mr.WHO wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Aug 22, 16:32
Alm888 wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Aug 22, 15:37
What's the bet?
Well, that's why I don't like how vague this report is.
Anyway, what is about that bet of yours? Maybe I would like to participate in a wager?
mr.WHO wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Aug 22, 16:32
It would be better if they provide mode details on those 22 cases, otherwise it's anybody guess. Mykolaiv is the only specified location for analysis.
Agreed. The "report" (more like a news article) is extremely lacking. Perhaps, we shall wait for a more in-depth report from
UN Human Rights Council, most likely during one of its "sessions" like
this (see A/HRC/50/CRP.4).
mr.WHO wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Aug 22, 16:32
Alm888 wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Aug 22, 15:37
Does lack of other fortified positions justify one's attempts to entrench in a school or civilian house?
It would surely not be justified to use them, if Russia would be world leader in chivalry, clean warfare and strict code of conduct.
Otherwise I'd fortify schools, hospitals and everything avaliable all the time.
In other words, other peoples' crimes justify any your action? Noted. But I can not agree to this. Because under this logic Germany's war crimes (well-documented) performed on eastern front during WWII justify all the crimes attributed to USSR on Germany's land. I'm sorry, but this is simply unacceptable. A war crime is a war crime and no amount of mind-bending would whitewash someone's atrocities in my eyes.
mr.WHO wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Aug 22, 16:32
Alm888 wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Aug 22, 15:37
At this point it is safe to say that the whole of Ukraine is "marked as another Mariupol".
If they happily bomb Kharkiv and Odessa, suppose "russian cities by hearth", then it's hard to find what wouldn't clasisfy as next Mariupol.
Let's not speak about "happiness" here, shall we? You are in no position to determine whether the shelling is performed "happily" or "grievously". The only fact is that it was and
will be performed. Because war is hell. And everyone
cheering for war is insane.
mr.WHO wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Aug 22, 16:32
That's what I said above - if Russia would be know to conduct warfare in different way, there wouldn't be need to fortify schools and hospitals in a first place.
Nope. Other people's actions do not justify one's war crimes. No one "forces" Ukrainian army to entrench inside densely-populated cities. Would they lose otherwise? Most probably. But losing
is permitted by laws of war, using civilians as meat-shields is not.
mr.WHO wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Aug 22, 16:32
I say it again, can you fight clean against enemy, who don't shy from using Nuclear Plants as a shield and a battleground?
What would be worse? Blowing up an empty school, or blowing up another Chernobyl?
Maybe because it is the effing
Nuclear power plant? And a pre-blown-up to boot! If one was to fortify it, I don't know who would suffer more, the defender or the attacker… Maybe that's why it was not used (and shall probably not be used, ever) as a stronghold?
mr.WHO wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Aug 22, 16:32
There are war crimes on both side, but only one side had a luxury of a choice to not commit them.
No. everyone needs to obey the rules of war. They are invented not because we as a species are so noble. On the contrary, human beings are terrible. But using "practical approach" (feign surrender, masquerading as non-combatants, faking death, torturing and executing prisoners and so on) is gonna catch and hit the perpetrator. All of this is motivating your enemy to fight even harder and what could be a small skirmish over a couple of villages blows up in a "total war".