News War with Russia

Gwadien

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,917
DaGaffer said:
Seems like an odd choice, not enough to be useful, and non-standard ammo and gun, whereas most other NATO tanks are interoperable. Leopards or Abrams would make a lot more sense than these.
Click to expand...

Yeah this, very meh tbh.

It's a shame we're not sending our newest IVFs (which were fucked due to excessive vibration) but I'm not sure if they're fixed.
 
Embattle

Embattle

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
13,505
DaGaffer said:
Seems like an odd choice, not enough to be useful, and non-standard ammo and gun, whereas most other NATO tanks are interoperable. Leopards or Abrams would make a lot more sense than these.
Click to expand...

I said that to my dad when he mentioned it, since they have rifled barrels until the challenger 3 upgrade. They would still be useful but I suspect it is to spur some other countries to provide MBTs.
 
Embattle

Embattle

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
13,505
Gwadien said:
Yeah this, very meh tbh.

It's a shame we're not sending our newest IVFs (which were fucked due to excessive vibration) but I'm not sure if they're fixed.
Click to expand...

The Ajax is carrying on being developed, although there has been calls to scrap it.
 
Gwadien

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,917
We should just pay for America to give them the rest of their Bradleys, they're getting new ones anyway.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,724
Wij said:
Amnesty is not fit for purpose.
Click to expand...
Really? That's a bit baby out with the bathwater.

So, they said some stuff, some of it was refuted when they hired a team of human rights lawyers to analyse what they said - and the outcome was generally "Lacking sufficient information ... the group should have used more cautious language."

That's a bit different than "not fit for purpose". They actually hired a team to produce a "lessons learned" report on what they'd done. If they learn those lessons that shows them doing the right thing - good governance.

And this stuff:

In some respects, the report by the review panel absolved Amnesty International, concluding that it was proper to evaluate whether a defender, not just an aggressor, was obeying the laws of war, and saying that Amnesty’s records made clear that Ukrainian forces were frequently near civilians.

Under international law, it wrote, both sides in any conflict must try to protect civilians, regardless of the rightness of their cause.

As a result, it is “entirely appropriate” for a rights organization to criticize violations by a victim of aggression, “provided that there is sufficient evidence of such violations.”
Click to expand...

Was fair game. They just did it ham-fistedly.

Saying Amnesty is "not fit for purpose" isn't just "not using cautious language" it's a massive over-reaction tbh.
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Scouse said:
Really? That's a bit baby out with the bathwater.

So, they said some stuff, some of it was refuted when they hired a team of human rights lawyers to analyse what they said - and the outcome was generally "Lacking sufficient information ... the group should have used more cautious language."

That's a bit different than "not fit for purpose". They actually hired a team to produce a "lessons learned" report on what they'd done. If they learn those lessons that shows them doing the right thing - good governance.

And this stuff:



Was fair game. They just did it ham-fistedly.

Saying Amnesty is "not fit for purpose" isn't just "not using cautious language" it's a massive over-reaction tbh.
Click to expand...
They created this 'ham-fisted' (factually incorrect) report because it gave them the verdict they wanted, Ukraine is as bad as Russia, which was untrue, they just wanted it to be true to fit a political agenda. Politics before facts. Cunts.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,724
Wij said:
They created this 'ham-fisted' (factually incorrect) report because it gave them the verdict they wanted, Ukraine is as bad as Russia, which was untrue, they just wanted it to be true to fit a political agenda. Politics before facts. Cunts.
Click to expand...
No. They didn't say that, it was read (and exploited) that way.

They made the point that Ukraine was stationing military near civilians (in hospitals) - and acting in contravention to law. The human rights lawyers said that it was "entirely appropriate" for Amnesty to point that out.

Their report also wasn't "factually incorrect" - it "wasn't fully substantiated". So they did have evidence.

As much as you want to bash the Russians and bash anyone who doesn't fully buy into the bash the Russians narrative - what came out of this is that Amnesty were 'incautious in their use of language' - which enabled their report to be used opportunistically by the aggressor.

That's the extent of their faux pas. No more, really.
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Scouse said:
No. They didn't say that, it was read (and exploited) that way.

They made the point that Ukraine was stationing military near civilians (in hospitals) - and acting in contravention to law. The human rights lawyers said that it was "entirely appropriate" for Amnesty to point that out.

Their report also wasn't "factually incorrect" - it "wasn't fully substantiated". So they did have evidence.

As much as you want to bash the Russians and bash anyone who doesn't fully buy into the bash the Russians narrative - what came out of this is that Amnesty were 'incautious in their use of language' - which enabled their report to be used opportunistically by the aggressor.

That's the extent of their faux pas. No more, really.
Click to expand...
No, they had no evidence to say that Ukraine was putting civilians in danger. But they left in language which could easily be read as Ukraine uses human shields, for which they had no proof at all. A gift to the Russian war-crime-mongers.

Yes, it's right that people look into these things. It's not right to present utterly unproven narratives as fact.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,724
Wij said:
No, they had no evidence
Click to expand...
It helps if you bother to read the actual report that was linked to by the paper:

The principal factual finding of the PR that, in the various locations surveyed , Ukrainian armed forces placed themselves in civilian objects in the proximity of civilians who remained in these areas, including hospitals and abandoned schools, is reasonably
substantiated by the evidence presented to the Panel
Click to expand...

Oooh. And:

The principal legal finding of the PR was that Ukrainian forces failed to take precautions to the maximum extent feasible to protect civilians in their areas of operation.
Click to expand...
Oh dear eh?

It seems that rather than Amnesty International it's your emotions on the subject that are "not fit for purpose" my friend.
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Scouse said:
It helps if you bother to read the actual report that was linked to by the paper:



Oooh. And:


Oh dear eh?

It seems that rather than Amnesty International it's your emotions on the subject that are "not fit for purpose" my friend.
Click to expand...
lol - the PR is what they were assessing, the original press release, not this independent review :) Read the next few sentences.

It's basically what the article I posted ages ago said (more or less, not saying 100% but broadly similar). They accepted that Ukrainian military were sometimes placed near civilians which may have put them in danger but it's almost impossible to say whether it put them in more or less danger because they don't know what the intentions and plans of the Ukrainian and Russian military were.

There's virtually no way to prevent civilian deaths when the Russians want to cause them and not all civilians are willing to be evacuated. The review said there wasn't enough evidence for the conclusions Amnesty put into the PR. Which is exactly what was said by everyone calling them cunts at the time.
 
fettoken

fettoken

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
9,640
So it most likely was Russia who did the Nord-stream bombing. Who would have guessed..


Avslöjar: Ryska ”spökskepp” vid Nord Stream – fram till fem dagar före sabotaget

Clarification. There's a whole hour report with Finland, Denmark and Sweden cooperating and digging info which shows two Russian ships (one being a research ship with submarine-capability) one being exactly on top of the later exploding pipe-line while the other being 2km near. Both ships have never been near these locations before. There's evidence from satellite and other data.
 
Embattle

Embattle

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
13,505
Also I believe that attack on the Kremlin was perpetrated by the Ukraine about as much as I believe the Moon is made out of Cheese.
 
fettoken

fettoken

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
9,640
Yeah also being so perfectly filmed and also the drone exploding exactly next to the flag. No chance
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
fettoken said:
Yeah also being so perfectly filmed and also the drone exploding exactly next to the flag. No chance
Click to expand...
I don’t like to speculate too much but the fact you can see people climbing on the roof of the Kremlin as it happened was very strange.
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Tankies will think it was the CIA / Norwukrainians though.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,724
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,724
Wij said:
Quick reverse ferret from the Russians, boasting about it and then blaming Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Who knows eh?

I understand the dam provided nearly all the water to Crimea. Seems like it would be a massive own goal?
 
Embattle

Embattle

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
13,505
Scouse said:
Who knows eh?

I understand the dam provided nearly all the water to Crimea. Seems like it would be a massive own goal?
Click to expand...

Not if it makes it harder to cross the river, I would give it a 80/20 split to the Russians having done it.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,724
Embattle said:
Not if it makes it harder to cross the river, I would give it a 80/20 split to the Russians having done it.
Click to expand...
Harder to cross the river vs nobody in Crimea with water?

Do we really think Ukraine is doing some massive "retake Crimea" push?
 
C

caLLous

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,520
And the "water to Crimea" line doesn't hold up at all because Ukraine cut off the supply after the annexation for 8 years until Russia reconnected it after the invasion and... Crimea still had water during that period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top Bottom