villa89 Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 32 minutes ago, Hobsons Choice said: Genuine question- is that not against the Geneva Convention? And what if it is? Nobody cares about the Geneva Convention. Look at Russia, Israel, China...etc. It's the same as the UN, nobody cares what they say or do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 3 Moderator Share Posted September 3 46 minutes ago, Hobsons Choice said: Genuine question- is that not against the Geneva Convention? I thought it was illegal: "it is prohibited in all circumstances to use incendiary weapons against the civilian population, civilian objects, forests or other kinds of plant cover" Are you really suggesting that Russian civilians were hiding in the woods in Ukrainian territory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobsons Choice Posted September 3 VT Supporter Share Posted September 3 10 minutes ago, bickster said: Are you really suggesting that Russian civilians were hiding in the woods in Ukrainian territory? That is not a requirement. As far as I understand it the rule is that it is not to be used in forests or plant cover in case any civilians on any side are in there. I'm 100% pro Ukraine, but thermite is an appalling weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobsons Choice Posted September 3 VT Supporter Share Posted September 3 29 minutes ago, villa89 said: And what if it is? Nobody cares about the Geneva Convention. Look at Russia, Israel, China...etc. It's the same as the UN, nobody cares what they say or do. I'll answer this with another question- Are you happy for war crimes to be committed as long as it is your side committing them? Again what Russia have done is absolutely appalling, bombing civilian targets such as shopping centres, but I personally don't think that is a mandate to also commit war crimes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 3 Moderator Share Posted September 3 14 minutes ago, Hobsons Choice said: That is not a requirement. As far as I understand it the rule is that it is not to be used in forests or plant cover in case any civilians on any side are in there. I'm 100% pro Ukraine, but thermite is an appalling weapon. This is on Ukrainian soil. You are literally saying that governments can't set fire to their own land. It would be more understandable on another country's land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobsons Choice Posted September 3 VT Supporter Share Posted September 3 1 minute ago, bickster said: This is on Ukrainian soil. You are literally saying that governments can't set fire to their own land. It would be more understandable on another country's land. But this is the military using thermite dropped from a drone, they are not trying to remove weeds. If a government wants to set fire to it's own land they would need to take steps to ensure no one is there first. They wouldn't just drop 1000 degree molton iron onto a random patch of woodland not under their military control. If they knew the area was unoccupied they would not need to send drones in to do this, ergo they do not know if anyone is in there. Brass tacks this is a horrible way to wage war, regardless of how it is being presented. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Hobsons Choice said: Brass tacks this is a horrible way to wage war, regardless of how it is being presented. It's one of the least offensive things about this war. If it's even offensive, which is very debatable. Edited September 3 by villa89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobsons Choice Posted September 3 VT Supporter Share Posted September 3 Just now, villa89 said: It's one of a least offensive things about this war. If it's even offensive, which is very debatable. I guess we're getting into the morality of killing someone by shooting them versus burning them alive, and I appreciate I don't have an answer to that as the end result is effectively the same. It's quite emotive I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc1982am Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 3 hours ago, Hobsons Choice said: That is not a requirement. As far as I understand it the rule is that it is not to be used in forests or plant cover in case any civilians on any side are in there. I'm 100% pro Ukraine, but thermite is an appalling weapon. Russia have been using incendiary, thermite including thermobaric bombs against Ukrainians for 2 and a half years already. All sorts of ghastly shit. Where you been? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 25 minutes ago, avfc1982am said: Russia have been using incendiary, thermite including thermobaric bombs against Ukrainians for 2 and a half years already. All sorts of ghastly shit. Where you been? I doubt he approves of Russia doing it, in fact everyones position on that is probably so obvious that we can take it for a given. The question for discussion though is should the our side be stooping to the level of the ‘bad guys’? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Dogg Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 3 hours ago, Hobsons Choice said: But this is the military using thermite dropped from a drone, they are not trying to remove weeds. If a government wants to set fire to it's own land they would need to take steps to ensure no one is there first. They wouldn't just drop 1000 degree molton iron onto a random patch of woodland not under their military control. If they knew the area was unoccupied they would not need to send drones in to do this, ergo they do not know if anyone is in there. Brass tacks this is a horrible way to wage war, regardless of how it is being presented. Aren't they dropping it on military personnel and equipment? They are not just setting the trees on fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 16 minutes ago, LondonLax said: I doubt he approves of Russia doing it, in fact everyones position on that is probably so obvious that we can take it for a given. The question for discussion though is should the our side be stooping to the level of the ‘bad guys’? It’s an interesting topic. Punching an innocent person in the face, not ok. Punching someone in the face who just attacked you or a loved one, perfectly reasonable to most people. The fact Ukraine are using it on their own land which is riddled with Russians who have invaded and spent 2 years killing, stealing and raping their Ukrainians makes it more acceptable. The day Russia retreat back over the border and stop attacking Ukraine is the day the war is likely to end. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozzavfc Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 41 killed, 180 injured after 2 ballistic missiles hit a military academy in Poltava. I've spent time in Poltava (prior to the war) so this hits extra hard 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 You'd wonder what the US response would be if their own citizens were being killed in supermarkets and schools by bombs. Yet it's okay to let Ukrainians die this way and not retaliate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc1982am Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 1 hour ago, LondonLax said: I doubt he approves of Russia doing it, in fact everyones position on that is probably so obvious that we can take it for a given. The question for discussion though is should the our side be stooping to the level of the ‘bad guys’? I understand that, however I think the "our side" argument is irrelevant unless you're Ukrainian. At the end of the day they should be within their rights to do whatever necessary to rid their land of an invading force. Especially an invading force which has shown a complete disregard for human life, including civilians. I don't think there is any moral argument to be had here tbh. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc1982am Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 (edited) 1 hour ago, Genie said: It’s an interesting topic. Punching an innocent person in the face, not ok. Punching someone in the face who just attacked you or a loved one, perfectly reasonable to most people. The fact Ukraine are using it on their own land which is riddled with Russians who have invaded and spent 2 years killing, stealing and raping their Ukrainians makes it more acceptable. The day Russia retreat back over the border and stop attacking Ukraine is the day the war is likely to end. Spot on. Russia have already shown they have no intention of calling it a day. They are still more than happy to murder, rape and pillage their way through Ukraine lands destroying everything and anyone. I actually think it's a bit of a piss take that anyone not involved directly in this war can take any moral high ground on the methods that Ukrainian forces are using to stop this from happening. Edited September 3 by avfc1982am 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 3 Moderator Share Posted September 3 36 minutes ago, villa89 said: You'd wonder what the US response would be if their own citizens were being killed in supermarkets and schools by bombs Seem to be ok with it when its assault rifles 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobsons Choice Posted September 3 VT Supporter Share Posted September 3 (edited) 3 hours ago, avfc1982am said: Russia have been using incendiary, thermite including thermobaric bombs against Ukrainians for 2 and a half years already. All sorts of ghastly shit. Where you been? 3 hours ago, LondonLax said: I doubt he approves of Russia doing it, in fact everyones position on that is probably so obvious that we can take it for a given. The question for discussion though is should the our side be stooping to the level of the ‘bad guys’? 2 hours ago, Genie said: It’s an interesting topic. Punching an innocent person in the face, not ok. Punching someone in the face who just attacked you or a loved one, perfectly reasonable to most people. The fact Ukraine are using it on their own land which is riddled with Russians who have invaded and spent 2 years killing, stealing and raping their Ukrainians makes it more acceptable. The day Russia retreat back over the border and stop attacking Ukraine is the day the war is likely to end. I've been unable to respond for a bit at work. Poster 2 got it right. Doing something unethical to respond to something unethical is unfortunately not ethical, even if it seems that way. One principal reason is set out below. Poster 3. It's not just punching someone who punched you though, because there is a distinction between military and civilian, or potentially civilian targets. That is ultimately the distinction of what is 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' in the sphere of war. A better equivalent would be punching the child of an adult who had punched your child. I can't think of a circumstance where that would be acceptable. The 'children' in this scenario being civilians. I'm assuming that the principal reason for including the clause which prevents the use of incendiary weapons in forested areas specifically is that it is not possible to determine whether civilians are there, for example when napalm was used in Vietnam leading to horrific scenes. Once again I am very much pro Ukraine and anti Russian in this, obviously, but this is a discussion of ethics, and one cannot take a stance of moral superiority, as Ukraine currently occupies, and should continue to occupy, if one also acts unethically. Anyway this is all a friendly hypothetical discussion. Edit, I should add that the Geneva Convention is there to protect civilians in a warzone as much as it is to protect combatants. Edited September 3 by Hobsons Choice 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 44 minutes ago, Hobsons Choice said: Poster 3. It's not just punching someone who punched you though, because there is a distinction between military and civilian, or potentially civilian targets. That is ultimately the distinction of what is 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' in the sphere of war. There were no potential civilians hiding amongst the trees with the Russian soldiers in Ukraine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroesAndVillans Posted September 3 VT Supporter Share Posted September 3 "Special" operation indeed by the looks of things... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts