[Faust]

I read quite a few military experts are expecting the eventual creation of a demilitarised zone and maybe a warning nuke. That will be the new normal. All sides will claim this as a victory. Military budgets will increase everywhere to the detriment (non-commercial) space exploration.

I agree on most things but I don’t think there will be a single nuke only, also no info on the size of the zone but this should be 100KM with all the artillery

[WonderMomma]

^I don't even know what to say to that Faust. I'm not going to touch that with a 10 foot pole.

MEANWHILE:

See first photo for the post description...

[WonderMomma]

This is going to be a big story like the Amnesty Int'l one I think. Everyone brace yourself

1-2. SOURCE 1: "Human Rights Watch got dirty again, with another report. Where they unjustly accused Ukraine of using prohibited anti-personnel mines and published a map of Ukraine without Crimea.

Information about the use of anti-personnel mines by both sides is contained in the latest HRW report, where the map has already been removed!

"It appears that the Ukrainian Armed Forces have scattered numerous landmines in the area around Izyum, resulting in civilian casualties and creating constant danger. The Russian military constantly uses landmines and has committed horrific crimes across the country, but this does not justify Ukraine's use of the banned weapons," said HRW Arms Director Steve Huss.

Ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets reacted:

"Our state has always been open to investigations into any allegations. At the same time, Ukraine has concrete evidence that Russia is making every effort to discredit Ukraine, primarily with the aim of weakening its military support," he noted."


3. SOURCE 2:
"The international human rights organization Human Rights Watch said (https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/01/31/...harm-civilians See below) that the Ukrainian military threw thousands of banned anti-personnel mines at the Izyum area, causing civilian casualties. The organization demanded an investigation into the use of PFM mines ("petal mines").

The report says that Ukrainian troops mined areas near Russian military facilities, while Russians are actively using anti-personnel mines everywhere.

Ukraine is a state party to the 1997 Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, which completely prohibits the use of such weapons. Russia refused to sign the treaty."

NOTE: I was going to paste the article from the link above but it is probably the longest one I've ever seen. Not going to include it here but you can read it by visiting the link above.

[WonderMomma]

Several explosions reported in Mariupol

"Mariupol Air alarm.
Loud sounds of cannonade throughout the city. At least seven loud explosions. Left Bank.
A frank arrival between the village Vynogradne et al. Pioneer.
They report on the active work of the occupiers' anti-aircraft defense.
Unofficial propaganda outlets, of course, report the standard "UAV attack" and "all targets shot down."
Preferably for real. We smile and wait for good cotton news.
The night ceases to be exact"

[Faust]

Originally Posted by WonderMomma ↗

This is going to be a big story like the Amnesty Int'l one I think. Everyone brace yourself

1-2. SOURCE 1: "Human Rights Watch got dirty again, with another report. Where they unjustly accused Ukraine of using prohibited anti-personnel mines and published a map of Ukraine without Crimea.

Information about the use of anti-personnel mines by both sides is contained in the latest HRW report, where the map has already been removed!

"It appears that the Ukrainian Armed Forces have scattered numerous landmines in the area around Izyum, resulting in civilian casualties and creating constant danger. The Russian military constantly uses landmines and has committed horrific crimes across the country, but this does not justify Ukraine's use of the banned weapons," said HRW Arms Director Steve Huss.

Ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets reacted:

"Our state has always been open to investigations into any allegations. At the same time, Ukraine has concrete evidence that Russia is making every effort to discredit Ukraine, primarily with the aim of weakening its military support," he noted."


3. SOURCE 2:
"The international human rights organization Human Rights Watch said (https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/01/31/...harm-civilians See below) that the Ukrainian military threw thousands of banned anti-personnel mines at the Izyum area, causing civilian casualties. The organization demanded an investigation into the use of PFM mines ("petal mines").

The report says that Ukrainian troops mined areas near Russian military facilities, while Russians are actively using anti-personnel mines everywhere.

Ukraine is a state party to the 1997 Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, which completely prohibits the use of such weapons. Russia refused to sign the treaty."

NOTE: I was going to paste the article from the link above but it is probably the longest one I've ever seen. Not going to include it here but you can read it by visiting the link above.

This is what (no offence) I believe you don’t understand.

There is a rule: don’t use mines near civilians. There is a report that army X used mines near civilians and civilians are dead and or maimed because of it.

“But hiter-!”
The rule is don’t use mines near civilians.
“They raped women so they-!”
The rule is don’t use mines near civilians.
“But they are defending themselves-!”
The rule is don’t use mines near civilians.

“OMG that report is so biased!! They don’t even look at Hitler, the raping or the defence!”

The report is not about that, the report probably even condemns the Hitler, raping and defence in a prologue. The report is merely about army X used mines near civilians and civilians are dead and or maimed because of it.

Does the report say that army X should be attacked or that they should not be allowed to defend themselves? No it does not. It only states that army X used mines near civilians and civilians are dead and or maimed because of it.

[WhiskeyOutpost]

Faust can you take this elsewhere please. This is not the thread for it.

[Faust]

It is in response to WM post implying the human rights organisation is wrong. It is not wrong, it is merely looking at the fact that apparently ukraine uses mines near civilian areas which caused the civilians to be killed.

The report is not about how horrible an invasion is; only about the mine usage

[WonderMomma]

Originally Posted by WonderMomma ↗

This is going to be a big story like the Amnesty Int'l one I think. Everyone brace yourself

1-2. SOURCE 1: "Human Rights Watch got dirty again, with another report. Where they unjustly accused Ukraine of using prohibited anti-personnel mines and published a map of Ukraine without Crimea.

Information about the use of anti-personnel mines by both sides is contained in the latest HRW report, where the map has already been removed!

"It appears that the Ukrainian Armed Forces have scattered numerous landmines in the area around Izyum, resulting in civilian casualties and creating constant danger. The Russian military constantly uses landmines and has committed horrific crimes across the country, but this does not justify Ukraine's use of the banned weapons," said HRW Arms Director Steve Huss.

Ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets reacted:

"Our state has always been open to investigations into any allegations. At the same time, Ukraine has concrete evidence that Russia is making every effort to discredit Ukraine, primarily with the aim of weakening its military support," he noted."


3. SOURCE 2:
"The international human rights organization Human Rights Watch said (https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/01/31/...harm-civilians See below) that the Ukrainian military threw thousands of banned anti-personnel mines at the Izyum area, causing civilian casualties. The organization demanded an investigation into the use of PFM mines ("petal mines").

The report says that Ukrainian troops mined areas near Russian military facilities, while Russians are actively using anti-personnel mines everywhere.

Ukraine is a state party to the 1997 Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, which completely prohibits the use of such weapons. Russia refused to sign the treaty."

NOTE: I was going to paste the article from the link above but it is probably the longest one I've ever seen. Not going to include it here but you can read it by visiting the link above.

Originally Posted by Faust ↗

This is what (no offence) I believe you don’t understand.

There is a rule: don’t use mines near civilians. There is a report that army X used mines near civilians and civilians are dead and or maimed because of it.

“But hiter-!”
The rule is don’t use mines near civilians.
“They raped women so they-!”
The rule is don’t use mines near civilians.
“But they are defending themselves-!”
The rule is don’t use mines near civilians.

“OMG that report is so biased!! They don’t even look at Hitler, the raping or the defence!”

The report is not about that, the report probably even condemns the Hitler, raping and defence in a prologue. The report is merely about army X used mines near civilians and civilians are dead and or maimed because of it.

Does the report say that army X should be attacked or that they should not be allowed to defend themselves? No it does not. It only states that army X used mines near civilians and civilians are dead and or maimed because of it.

Originally Posted by Faust ↗

It is in response to WM post implying the human rights organisation is wrong. It is not wrong, it is merely looking at the fact that apparently ukraine uses mines near civilian areas which caused the civilians to be killed.

The report is not about how horrible an invasion is; only about the mine usage

Show me where I personally made any implications that they are wrong or expressed any of my own opinions?

All I said was this was going to be a big story like the Amnesty Int'l report several months ago. The only other thing I said was that the article from HRW was too long to post.

The opinions that it's wrong were directly from my sources not my own.Like with the f-16, I fully understand the rules and guidelines of mines. I PUT QUOTES ON MY SOURCE CAPTIONS! Those were not my words

EDIT: I'm annoyed I keep having to explain this. Especially after I started putting quotes on everything per my discussion with Duntez two days ago.

[Faust]

Yeah sorry I must have misread it or something, apologies. i was too tired today

[WonderMomma]

Originally Posted by Faust ↗

Yeah sorry I must have misread it or something, apologies. i was too tired today

No worries. Sorry if "bit your head off" about it.