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.

Well they tried to blame Germany when they located those Polish Officers.

I can see experience winning over inexperience here

 Daemonhammer wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
What is it that scares you about me?

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.

Do I defend the name of the "motherland"(Actually Ukraine would be more my motherland than Russia is.)? Sometimes maybe. In the same way you can say other Dakkanauts have defended the actions of other countries, Israel and the US being notable examples. Does that make me less able to handle different opinions? I understand full well that other people think differently about Russia and her actions than the Russians themselves do. However, I do not aim to defend Russia, I mostly just want to make clear the Russian point of view. In a situation involving Russia, you can not get a good view if you do not know how the Russians view this situation. Neither do I have any special relationship with Freakazoid, but his posts are typical of opinions shared by many Russians, even if his English is not so good. Dismissing it as "ramblings" is like being a child who sticks his fingers in his ears and pretends not to hear. However, I do not recall defending his posts anywhere in this thread.

My personal feelings towards Russia are very mixed. I think it is very ironic and funny that some people here think of me as a Russian nationalist. On Russian forums and in Sevastopol, they usually think I am an ignorant голландец trying to criticise Russia and defend the West. The world is a weird place.
If you look at my first post in this thread, you will see that I said that the Russian army is brutal, murderous and not at all concerned with human rights. That is hardly defending it, no?
But for some reason some people on Dakka seem to have gotten the idea that this is me:

It is not. Like really not. And as I said before, the day you will meet a true Russian nationalist, you will know. By Russian standards I am pretty liberal and pro-Western. How much exactly do I have to concede? Does explaining and justifying Russia's actions make one a Russian nationalist who is unable to handle different opinions to you?

Also, "American users are more reserved towards their own country"? I am not going to do so, but I could call out plenty of American users in this thread alone who are blatant nationalists justifying every US actions, and who have expressed opinions far more extreme than mine. Why did you call me out and not them? Unfairly biased much?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Hi Polandball! Miss you. You have to give me 120000 Polish officers

Dude, that is sick. War crimes are not something you should make fun of.

Dude, that is sick. War crimes are not something you should make fun of.

I know. I suggested Daemonhammer to leave this subject, to confess and reconcile, but he insists on some satisfaction. If Poles in 1920-21 killed more Bolsheviks, let give me a difference in quantity. They will be disappeared and we will be quits.

 Daemonhammer wrote:
I am not sure if the Freakazoid - Iron_Captain duo on dakka makes me laugh or scares me. Probably both.

RUS gonna RUS.

Problem is when they try to RUS on other people's stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:


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.

Why the hell would you study anything OTHER than the outcomes? The on-the-ground reality. Everything else is just a social construct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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!

Exactly. Exactly.

Why do terrorists hide weapons and fighters in schools/hospitals? So that they can use the deaths of civilians to can demonize whoever is fighting said terrorists. It is an appeal to basic emotion, and I am frankly shocked that people STILL fall for it.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:


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.

Why the hell would you study anything OTHER than the outcomes? The on-the-ground reality. Everything else is just a social construct.

Because not everyone is a morally abhorrent absolutist? Because context is a thing that exists and which people take into account? Because something being a social construct doesn't necessarily make it bad*?



*On this note; the tendency that people have to not immediately rape each other upon their first meeting is, in fact, a social construct. Should we get rid of it due to it being a social construct?

 Goliath wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:


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.

Why the hell would you study anything OTHER than the outcomes? The on-the-ground reality. Everything else is just a social construct.

Because not everyone is a morally abhorrent absolutist? Because context is a thing that exists and which people take into account? Because something being a social construct doesn't necessarily make it bad*?



*On this note; the tendency that people have to not immediately rape each other upon their first meeting is, in fact, a social construct. Should we get rid of it due to it being a social construct?

By all means, give me the context as to why the same people who raised utter hell about the US blowing up a hospital are now running about defending the good name of Mother Russia for doing the same thing?

I eagerly await your well written, logical, and thorough analysis of this set of circumstances. I would also humbly submit that the statement "not raping people is a social construct" shows a lack of understanding about what either term means.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:


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.

Why the hell would you study anything OTHER than the outcomes? The on-the-ground reality. Everything else is just a social construct.

Because not everyone is a morally abhorrent absolutist? Because context is a thing that exists and which people take into account? Because something being a social construct doesn't necessarily make it bad*?



*On this note; the tendency that people have to not immediately rape each other upon their first meeting is, in fact, a social construct. Should we get rid of it due to it being a social construct?

By all means, give me the context as to why the same people who raised utter hell about the US blowing up a hospital are now running about defending the good name of Mother Russia for doing the same thing?

Frankly, because A, no they aren't. Ultimately, crossover between the two thread is actually quite small.

Certainly, you might feel differently, but B, as has been previously mentioned in many threads on this sort of thing, we're supposed to be the good guys. Killing people and shooting hospitals may be part of the Russian MO, but they don't project themselves as the defenders of fething righteousness to the international community. You in the US and the west in general (specifically the UK but also some other countries) have a lot of gak to answer for that often gets brushed off as 'well, they did that sort of stuff, so it's okay!', a position that just doesn't cut it.

On another note, why aren't you criticising the US as well as them, then? Usually you're all for judging based on outcomes, so surely the outcome of the US destroying a hospital surely is unacceptable to you; if that were a person who'd had a stroke and crashed into the hospital by accident, causing it's destruction, you'd be advocating for their execution, so why no criticism in this case?

I would also humbly submit that the statement "not raping people is a social construct" shows a lack of understanding about what either term means.

Encyclopedia.com wrote:"In the domain of social constructionist thought, a social construct is an idea or notion that appears to be natural and obvious to people who accept it but may or may not represent reality, so it remains largely an invention or artifice of a given society."

Everyone probably knows that there are societies in which rape is not deemed as abhorrent as it is in western culture. And given that rape occurs readily in a large number of species, surely it would follow on that the act of not raping people is in fact a social construct? This isn't necessarily a bad thing, mind, it's merely a means for me to make a point.

Also, what do you mean by 'either term'?

Do you mean the terms 'not raping people' and 'social construct' or the terms 'social' and 'construct'? If it's the latter, the terms taken independently have very little meaning in this regard; they need to be taken as a pair 'social construct/ion' to be useful in the current context.
Concerning the former, I'm fairly sure I understand what 'not raping people' means. Knowing what rape is, it's actually a rather hard term to misunderstand you see, the act of raping someone is, apart from a few edge cases, generally pretty clear cut; it would then follow that not raping people is also pretty clear cut, you just need to not do the act that you understand as rape.

Of course, in this case, I'm fairly sure that by using the word 'either' you were just trying to make your argument look smarter than it actually is.

Awesome. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Seriously.

I do get what your saying.... But you couldn't have picked a worse example

 LordofHats wrote:
I do get what your saying.... But you couldn't have picked a worse example

Yeah, I'm generally not amazing at picking suitable examples for things when I discuss them. I'll make a decent point, bu then the example will only work superficially, or based on most people's knowledge of it, and then I'll find out some aspect of the example that renders the entire thing invalid. Acceptance of rape probably wasn't the best choice; maybe something like women's equality would have been a better example? I dunno.

Gender is a good example. What is 'Masculine' and what is 'Feminine' is pretty much solely constructed by the society in question. Pink being a girly color is a social construct, as is blue being a boyish color.

Color in general can also be a decent example. White in western Europe has traditionally been associated with Life and Purity, while Black is associated with death and corruption (MTG reference ). But in Ancient Carthage, the reverse was true. Carthage associated white with death and black with life. They are observable reasons for why both cultures would make those associations, but ultimately the associations themselves are simply constructed by their respective societies.

 LordofHats wrote:
Gender is a good example. What is 'Masculine' and what is 'Feminine' is pretty much solely constructed by the society in question. Pink being a girly color is a social construct, as is blue being a boyish color.

Color in general can also be a decent example. White in western Europe has traditionally been associated with Life and Purity, while Black is associated with death and corruption (MTG reference ). But in Ancient Carthage, the reverse was true. Carthage associated white with death and black with life. They are observable reasons for why both cultures would make those associations, but ultimately the associations themselves are simply constructed by their respective societies.

Associations with colour would probably have been better as an example of a social construct that isn't necessarily bad, which was the point I was trying to make; my personal opinion is that the gender social construct isn't actually beneficial, and in many cases is harmful, so I wouldn't have been able to use that argument whilst remaining honest.

 Goliath wrote:
Associations with colour would probably have been better as an example of a social construct that isn't necessarily bad, which was the point I was trying to make; my personal opinion is that the gender social construct isn't actually beneficial, and in many cases is harmful, so I wouldn't have been able to use that argument whilst remaining honest.

Actually going to start another thread because this sent me down a line of thought that might be interesting to talk about

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/668946.page#8227923

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

Why the hell would you study anything OTHER than the outcomes? The on-the-ground reality. Everything else is just a social construct.

So you would equate a woman finally getting pregnant after years of trying thanks to IVF to a woman being left pregnant after she was raped, as the end outcome is the same. Or you would claim that a doctor who was trying to perform a life-saving operation whose patient dies during said operation is exactly the same as Harold Shipman as the end result is the same?

What a swell world it must be where intention and context are meaningless.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:


Why the hell would you study anything OTHER than the outcomes? The on-the-ground reality. Everything else is just a social construct.

No point in medicine then; everyone dies anyway, outcome's the same.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:


Why the hell would you study anything OTHER than the outcomes? The on-the-ground reality. Everything else is just a social construct.

No point in medicine then; everyone dies anyway, outcome's the same.

And with that we come full circle; There's nothing wrong with bombing hospitals cause everyone in them has gotta die sometime

Back on topic
Syria hospitals Russia accused of bombing don’t exist – Defense Ministry

The Russian Defense Ministry has denied media reports its aircraft hit hospitals in Syria, saying the medical facilities mentioned by Western media don’t actually exist.

The Defense Ministry has checked the data presented in recent media reports, which blamed Russian aviation for hitting several hospitals in Syria, Major-General Igor Konashenkov, the ministry spokesman said in a press briefing on Monday.

Konashenkov denied the accusations, which he said were "traditionally made without any proof, without any factual backing.”

Out of six hospitals that were mentioned in the reports, only one medical facility actually exists in real life, he added.

"We’ve checked this information. It turned out that, a hospital is only present in the village Sarmin,” the spokesman said, adding that there are no hospitals and no medical workers in the other five villages named in media reports.

The Defense Ministry presented a photo of the Sarmin hospital, which was taken on October 31 after the reports emerged.

The image showed the building was intact, disproving claims it had been completely destroyed and 12 people killed.

Reports in several Western media outlets on October 21-23 claimed that 12 people, including doctors, were killed in a Russian airstrike on the village of Sarmin in Syria’s Idlib province. They also said medical facilities were hit in al-Eis, al-Hadher, Khan Tuman, Latamna and al-Zarba.

The Russian Air Force has performed 131 sorties over the last two days, hitting 237 terrorist targets in various Syrian provinces, Konashenkov said.

No firsthand info on alleged Russian 'airstrike' on hospital in Syria – Red Cross top executive

Red Cross personnel on the ground in Syria have not reported any 'airstrikes' allegedly delivered by Russian jets on civilian targets including hospitals, the medical charity’s top executive told RT.

Since Moscow started its air campaign in Syria on September 30, Western media have been publishing reports that Russian jets are targeting civilians.
Last week, Russia was accused of bombing a number of hospitals in Syria, an allegation flatly denied by the Russian Defense Ministry.

Dominik Stillhart, director of operations at the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has people on the ground in Syria, told RT he is unaware of any such incidents.

Could we have a link to the source? I think you may have forgotten.

No problem it was on RT.
https://www.rt.com/news/320509-syria-russian-air-force/
https://www.rt.com/news/320046-stillhart-red-cross-hospital-russia/

Thanks.

Ah, anti-Russian propaganda. Some things never change.

It certainly does seem strange that there hasn't been follow up news of this event. Since the initial accusation, there doesn't seem to be any additional information released.

Maybe those sneaky Russians sent an army of workers to rebuild the hospitals they bombed and cover up the ones they couldn't fix in time before anyone could get a picture of the damage. And how crafty of them to bribe the Red Cross to deny these hospital bombings! Those dirty rats.

Here is the original article by the Defense Ministry:
http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12062400@egNews

This is the evidence they present:

This is the hospital in Sarmin being constructed.


Air photo of the same hospital.


The "hospital" in Sarmin that is said to be bombed:


As you can see, the building that was destroyed and is presented as the hospital, is not the same building as the actual hospital.
And with the Red Cross also not having any information on hospitals being bombed, it seems like this story was pretty much fake. It already seemed suspiciously convenient coming so soon after the US bombing of a hospital.

Also, I found this video on the site of the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/22/three-syrian-hospitals-bombed-since-russian-airstrikes-began-doctors-say
It shows an explosion, then the cameraman walking towards a building that looks suspiciously like the Sarmin hospital. Maybe it was so that there was an airstrike very close to the hospital, and the media decided to make the story a bit more spectacular?
Whatever the case, the hospital itself was not bombed and is still intact.

Russia must be doing that humanitarian bombing thing.

'Murica is doing democratic bombing, so you're even