Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
But the Russians saved their guided missile strikes for..the Iranians (accidentally, oops sorry Comrade)
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
There's an argument there to be made about which country is waging war in a more honest manner, but moral inconsistency in regards to identical tragedy is just weak. I mean really.
It's only "identical" because you refuse to study anything other than outcomes.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Isn't "there's no evidence it was us!!!" like the official Russian mantra?
They're like a noble house in Menzoberranzan.
It does seem Russia is pretty good at hiding evidence, because whenever people accuse them of something, no one can find it.
CptJake wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote: I would not be really surprised. The Russian military has a history of using excessive force and collateral damage. They have razed entire towns to the ground to get at terrorists in the past. The difference between the American and Russian militaries however, is that the Americans pretend to care for international law and human rights, their image depends on it. Russia on the other hand has no such concerns, its image depends on brute military force. That difference in image is why the US bombing a hospital is much more of a shock than Russia doing the same.
There is also the fact, that unlike the American bombing, there is no evidence here that Russia actually was involved. It may as well have been Syrian aircraft hitting those hospitals,
Give me a break. It is not hard to figure out what planes are flying what missions and I know for a fact we have guys looking at that (one is a good buddy of mine).
The mental gymnastics you go through to first claim 'Russians don't pretend to care for international laws' then to spin like a top stating 'there is no evidence it was the Russians' is particularly funny to me.
Take a stance, stick with it. Provide sources. You'll do better.
I don't think you understood what I was saying, and I am not sure I should take this comment from you seriously after the US bombs hospital thread.
Scrabb wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote: I would not be really surprised. The Russian military has a history of using excessive force and collateral damage. They have razed entire towns to the ground to get at terrorists in the past. The difference between the American and Russian militaries however, is that the Americans pretend to care for international law and human rights, their image depends on it. Russia on the other hand has no such concerns, its image depends on brute military force. That difference in image is why the US bombing a hospital is much more of a shock than Russia doing the same.
There is also the fact, that unlike the American bombing, there is no evidence here that Russia actually was involved. It may as well have been Syrian aircraft hitting those hospitals,
In summary:
Russia is okay with collateral damage when fighting terrorists
Americans are pussies that are pretending to not be okay with collateral damage due to public image concerns
Russia has cultivated an image of brutality
That's why people care when the US does something but those same people do not care when Russia does the same thing
It probably wasn't Russia because you have no proof
It could as easily have been Syrians bombing the hospital
Remove the pussies and change the forelast sentence to "Another reason people care less about this is that it might have been Russia but without more information and evidence it is hard to say anything." and you are correct. That was pretty much what I was trying to say.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/28 22:29:55
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Isn't "there's no evidence it was us!!!" like the official Russian mantra?
They're like a noble house in Menzoberranzan.
It does seem Russia is pretty good at hiding evidence, because whenever people accuse them of something, no one can find it.
I can see that this conversation is probably headed nowhere.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/28 23:35:11
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Isn't "there's no evidence it was us!!!" like the official Russian mantra?
They're like a noble house in Menzoberranzan.
It does seem Russia is pretty good at hiding evidence, because whenever people accuse them of something, no one can find it.
CptJake wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote: I would not be really surprised. The Russian military has a history of using excessive force and collateral damage. They have razed entire towns to the ground to get at terrorists in the past.
The difference between the American and Russian militaries however, is that the Americans pretend to care for international law and human rights, their image depends on it. Russia on the other hand has no such concerns, its image depends on brute military force. That difference in image is why the US bombing a hospital is much more of a shock than Russia doing the same.
There is also the fact, that unlike the American bombing, there is no evidence here that Russia actually was involved. It may as well have been Syrian aircraft hitting those hospitals,
Give me a break. It is not hard to figure out what planes are flying what missions and I know for a fact we have guys looking at that (one is a good buddy of mine).
The mental gymnastics you go through to first claim 'Russians don't pretend to care for international laws' then to spin like a top stating 'there is no evidence it was the Russians' is particularly funny to me.
Take a stance, stick with it. Provide sources. You'll do better.
I don't think you understood what I was saying, and I am not sure I should take this comment from you seriously after the US bombs hospital thread.
Scrabb wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote: I would not be really surprised. The Russian military has a history of using excessive force and collateral damage. They have razed entire towns to the ground to get at terrorists in the past.
The difference between the American and Russian militaries however, is that the Americans pretend to care for international law and human rights, their image depends on it. Russia on the other hand has no such concerns, its image depends on brute military force. That difference in image is why the US bombing a hospital is much more of a shock than Russia doing the same.
There is also the fact, that unlike the American bombing, there is no evidence here that Russia actually was involved. It may as well have been Syrian aircraft hitting those hospitals,
In summary:
Russia is okay with collateral damage when fighting terrorists
Americans are pussies that are pretending to not be okay with collateral damage due to public image concerns
Russia has cultivated an image of brutality
That's why people care when the US does something but those same people do not care when Russia does the same thing
It probably wasn't Russia because you have no proof
It could as easily have been Syrians bombing the hospital
Remove the pussies and change the forelast sentence to "Another reason people care less about this is that it might have been Russia but without more information and evidence it is hard to say anything." and you are correct. That was pretty much what I was trying to say.
Start reading what I actually said (hint: it was a response to Frazzled's question of "where is the outrage". I was trying to think of a possible explanation for why the outrage about this event is much less than when the US bombed a hospital, no Russian nationalism whatsoever.
Also proof that no matter what I say, people will twist it into some kind of Russian nationalist bs. Which is really ironic.
Ustrello wrote: Really? Because I saw stage one in denying russia did anything wrong
Is it possible for you to actually make an argument in this or any other thread involving russia that doesn't consist of "Well, that's stage one!" "Stage 3!" "Stage 47! I win!"
Repeating "Stage __" over and over again is not an intelligent argument, it would be like me going into the politics thread and shouting "Hurr! Obamacare!" every time someone disagreed with me.
Ustrello wrote: Really? Because I saw stage one in denying russia did anything wrong
Is it possible for you to actually make an argument in this or any other thread involving russia that doesn't consist of "Well, that's stage one!" "Stage 3!" "Stage 47! I win!"
Repeating "Stage __" over and over again is not an intelligent argument, it would be like me going into the politics thread and shouting "Hurr! Obamacare!" every time someone disagreed with me.
Yeah I could, but when dealing with russian nationalists most things go out the window.
Plus you can only rehash the same Russia did/is doing/supported X event with ample evidence and only receiving the same arguments in return before you just call them out on their crap until they are embarrassed enough to stop (much like people try and do when republicans try and deny climate change)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/29 16:05:48
yellowfever wrote: I think no one says anything about Russia is because they know Russia doesn't care. America will try to defend themselves and make it right (or at least pretend they are).
Russia will tell people to go feth themselves.
This is exactly right, in a nutshell, why there is no outrage.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I don't really care if Russia bombed a hospital. I don't care if Israel did ether...it's the oldest trick in the book right now. Hide your weapons cache in the hospital - they have to destroy the hospital to destroy our weapons cache. Brilliant!
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Xenomancers wrote: I don't really care if Russia bombed a hospital. I don't care if Israel did ether...it's the oldest trick in the book right now. Hide your weapons cache in the hospital - they have to destroy the hospital to destroy our weapons cache. Brilliant!
I like this. "If we commit enough war crimes, eventually it won't be a war crime! It'll just be war! Brilliant".
Xenomancers wrote: I don't really care if Russia bombed a hospital. I don't care if Israel did ether...it's the oldest trick in the book right now. Hide your weapons cache in the hospital - they have to destroy the hospital to destroy our weapons cache. Brilliant!
I like this. "If we commit enough war crimes, eventually it won't be a war crime! It'll just be war! Brilliant".
If your enemy doesn't play by the rules - why should you?
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
yellowfever wrote: ^ pretty much. It's tough being the supposed good guys.
There are no good guys in war nor is there honor. Just those that did what they did to survive and those that didn't survive. People at home spend their time worring about being the good guys on the winning team.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't really care if Russia bombed a hospital. I don't care if Israel did ether...it's the oldest trick in the book right now. Hide your weapons cache in the hospital - they have to destroy the hospital to destroy our weapons cache. Brilliant!
I like this. "If we commit enough war crimes, eventually it won't be a war crime! It'll just be war! Brilliant".
If your enemy doesn't play by the rules - why should you?
We're supposed to be the good guys. Al Qaeda flew a plane into the twin towers/pentagon, does that mean you would condone the US army hijacking an afghani passenger jet and flying it into a taliban facility? After all, if they don't play by the rules, why should you?
Xenomancers wrote: I don't really care if Russia bombed a hospital. I don't care if Israel did ether...it's the oldest trick in the book right now. Hide your weapons cache in the hospital - they have to destroy the hospital to destroy our weapons cache. Brilliant!
I like this. "If we commit enough war crimes, eventually it won't be a war crime! It'll just be war! Brilliant".
If your enemy doesn't play by the rules - why should you?
We're supposed to be the good guys. Al Qaeda flew a plane into the twin towers/pentagon, does that mean you would condone the US army hijacking an afghani passenger jet and flying it into a taliban facility? After all, if they don't play by the rules, why should you?
Except your example is nothing like what is going on. If Talibs were firing from the MSF facility in Afghanistan, the MSF facility lost its protected status (which honestly it may never of had, still waiting for someone to show it had the markings required by the Geneva conventions). Once it loses protected status it is NOT a violation of any laws of war to hit it. Also, if it retained protected status and was hit due to some mistake, it is perhaps tragic, but not a violation of the laws of war. Conversely, hijacking a plane full of civilians and flying it into a civilian target like the twin towers in no way is ever going to be considered a legal attack.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Ustrello wrote: Really? Because I saw stage one in denying russia did anything wrong
Firstly, I am not a Russian nationalist. Should you ever meet an actual Russian nationalist you will know you are wrong.
Secondly, I did not deny Russia did anything wrong. Because I had not seen any evidence of Russian involvement in this (and so far you, nor anyone else has managed to come up with any), I simply stated that there was no evidence either way for Russian involvement. Given lack of evidence, the logical conclusion is to assume no Russian involvement until proven otherwise. Or do you normally also believe random claims without any evidence whatsoever?
In any case, reading comprehension is important: saying there is a lack of evidence is not the same as denying.
@BrotherGecko I don't need a lecture about war. Still doesn't change the fact we follow the Geneva conventions because we are the "supposed" good guys. Just like the other countries that do.
I know many people that think of our military as good guys. It's why we don't wipe out whole towns. Or bomb schools. There can definitely be honor in war. Honor to your country and fellow soldiers.
yellowfever wrote: @BrotherGecko I don't need a lecture about war. Still doesn't change the fact we follow the Geneva conventions because we are the "supposed" good guys. Just like the other countries that do.
I know many people that think of our military as good guys. It's why we don't wipe out whole towns. Or bomb schools. There can definitely be honor in war. Honor to your country and fellow soldiers.
You're the only country that can't be done for war crimes, why is that. What are you scared of ???
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
yellowfever wrote: @BrotherGecko I don't need a lecture about war. Still doesn't change the fact we follow the Geneva conventions because we are the "supposed" good guys. Just like the other countries that do.
I know many people that think of our military as good guys. It's why we don't wipe out whole towns. Or bomb schools. There can definitely be honor in war. Honor to your country and fellow soldiers.
You're the only country that can't be done for war crimes, why is that. What are you scared of ???
Scared? Not at all. We just happen to find killing innocents wrong, shockingly enough, and want to honor the agreements wee have made. Is there anything wrong with that?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Iron_Captain wrote: I would not be really surprised. The Russian military has a history of using excessive force and collateral damage. They have razed entire towns to the ground to get at terrorists in the past.
The difference between the American and Russian militaries however, is that the Americans pretend to care for international law and human rights, their image depends on it. Russia on the other hand has no such concerns, its image depends on brute military force. That difference in image is why the US bombing a hospital is much more of a shock than Russia doing the same.
This doesn't make it any less reprehensible.
That being said I would not put it past ISIS to shell hospitals, and I wouldnt expect a doctor to know the difference.
Pretty sure DaIsh is not flying jet plans and helicopters, as are the Russians. I would also bet most doctors can recognize an airplane or helicopter as opposed to a truck bomb coming through the front gate.
Sure but an artillery shell is not a truck bomb, and ISIS do have captured artillery.
Who is Dalsh?
He means daesh. Its the regional name for ISIS as most muslim folks don't want to legitimize ISIS by refering to them as "Islamic State." Its also what the Kurds call ISIS.
Iron_Captain wrote: I would not be really surprised. The Russian military has a history of using excessive force and collateral damage. They have razed entire towns to the ground to get at terrorists in the past. The difference between the American and Russian militaries however, is that the Americans pretend to care for international law and human rights, their image depends on it. Russia on the other hand has no such concerns, its image depends on brute military force. That difference in image is why the US bombing a hospital is much more of a shock than Russia doing the same.
This doesn't make it any less reprehensible.
That being said I would not put it past ISIS to shell hospitals, and I wouldnt expect a doctor to know the difference.
Pretty sure DaIsh is not flying jet plans and helicopters, as are the Russians. I would also bet most doctors can recognize an airplane or helicopter as opposed to a truck bomb coming through the front gate.
Sure but an artillery shell is not a truck bomb, and ISIS do have captured artillery. Who is Dalsh?
He means daesh. Its the regional name for ISIS as most muslim folks don't want to legitimize ISIS by refering to them as "Islamic State." Its also what the Kurds call ISIS.
Actually, "daesh" or "daish" is just short for "ad-dawlat al-ʾislāmiyya fī l-ʿirāq waš-šām", which literally means "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" . ISIS is just the English translation of daesh.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/30 03:30:41
So you understand what is it that makes me laugh about you? Good.
[...]maybe you have difficulty in handling different opinions?
I would question your ability to handle different opinions.
Whenever somebody mentiones Russia in some way, you usually show up to defend the name of the motherland.
For some reason you also usually come in to defend Freakazoids ramblings, this thread is a good example.
Most of the American users are usually atleast a bit reserved towards their own nation.
What you could try doing is from time to time concede a little, and not start arguments on every single thing others post.
motyak wrote:[...] Yes, the mods are illuminati, and yakface, lego and dakka dakka itself are the 3 points of the triangle.
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
The Undying Spawn of Shub-Niggurath 
