Iranian channel reminds the world of the Dresden massacre . I wonder why America keeps wanting to overthrow Iran
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (130)
sorted by:
This is after the Axis bombed London and most of Britain to near rubble, so fuck off?
You fucked around, you found out.
Sorry, this is retarded even by your standards. Just what did the people in Dresden have to do with 'fucking around'?
But if they are, Ukrainian men most certainly are more to blame than ordinary people in Dresden, and yet you scream day and night about them.
Really odd of you to be taking this position, since you routinely ascribe to the old world notion that a nation, its government, and its people are all a single unit whenever you talk about Ukraine. You delight in Russia's mass shelling of civilian areas & mass targeting/killing of Ukrainian civilians. Russia routinely acts as though every last woman and child in Ukraine is a nazi with a Totenkopf tattoo, because because a handful of people in Mariupol's Azov Regiment were like that.
Back in WW2 times - which are the times Russia still lives in to this day - it was considered to be perfectly normal to treat enemy civilians as part of the enemy war machine, and also to see terror bombing as a legitimate tool of war. Hell, Russia engages in terror bombing against Ukraine even now. There are countless videos of guided munitions fired by russia into residential areas and apartment blocks. I think it would have been far worse if not for the international media haranguing Russia for it to the point where it seems like Russia has largely switched tactics away from trying to outright kill civilians, to instead indirectly kill them by targeting their power and water supplies in the middle of winter.
The West learned from Dresden and stopped. What was acceptable changed. The world outside the West refused to accept this change, as we've seen through countless examples of terror attacks in non-Western wars, and so the West does what it can, through sanctions, to impose its taboos on others.
I also find it amusing that the Japanese got it 100x worse than the Germans, and yet nobody gives a shit about them because they weren't white. (just like the Soviet and Chinese immense civilian losses, by far the worst of the war, are essentially ignored by the West in favor of much smaller atrocities against whites in europe)
I do? Can you cite one single instance? I don't think you can, because I've always condemned the shelling of civilian areas (whether Donetsk or Mariupol), while also acknowledging that Azov used it as a human shield in the way that Hamas does.
What actions are those? Do they address them as Zelensky bodyguards? I'm not convinced of these mad tales of Russian supposed atrocities, particularly because it's wartime and the regime loves to make up propaganda about its adversaries. Bucha, seems likely that the Russians did it (though I can't see what rhyme or reason those actions have), but I wouldn't be surprised if there was something else either. But even that wasn't targeting of children and women.
About that, remember the statement by the NATO apparatchik defending taking out Yugoslavia's power? But... but... that wasn't in winter. I'm sure they would have stopped if their terror bombing lasted into winter.
The West is pure dogsh*t when it comes to governments. The only thing that changed in the West is that they started to hold up appearances. This means that they pretend to not target civilians, while actually bombing weddings. They'll pretend to support a "rules-based international order", while bombing Yugoslavia when it suits them and destroying one country after another. And they'll condemn it when Russia shells Mariupol while shilling for their puppets who shell the city center of Donetsk.
Just like they steal Russian assets and impose sanctions because "it invaded another country", and didn't do either against the US when it invaded other countries and didn't do it against their buddy Azerbaijan (with whose genocidal leader Von der Leyen was recently taking photo-ops).
Hypocrisy is the state religion of the West. I'm sure you won't be shocked that the people who protect grooming gangs are bad people.
That is interesting. I wonder if that's not because the atomic bombs suck all the oxygen out of the air. Most people don't know a lot about the terror bombings to begin with.
The interesting thing is that Stalin lied about Soviet losses in the war. He couldn't make them too low, but the true figure of 27 million was just too much, so he decided to cut it by 1/4. 7 million Soviet citizens died during the war, and that was final.
I'm not going to dig around your post history if that's even possible, but I distinctly remember that when Russia started to lose early in the war, and switched to terror artillery bombardment of civilian areas, your attitude towards that was to defend it, and argue that the blood is on Zelensky's (and the West's) hands for continuing to resist, that the best way to save lives was to capitulate. This is, of course, the exact mentality that Russia wanted to promote through its terror campaign. "just surrender to save lives, bro, stop making us mass murder you"
Azov did not = Mariupol. The Azov controlled one part of Mariupol around Azovstal, and there were numerous other units in Mariupol resisting. The idea that Mariupol = Azov was always Russian propaganda. Russia massively magnified the Azov Regiment's significance because a handful of its rank and file had wehraboo tattoos (as did many Russian soldiers, btw, it turns out love for SS iconography isn't a uniquely Ukrainian thing).
Also, Ukraine tried multiple times to get Russia to agree to a civilian corridor to evacuate Mariupol. Russia agreed, then opened fire on those who tried to flee. So no, I don't agree at all that anyone used Ukrainian civilians as human shields.
There were tons of dead bodies littering the streets in Bucha, and in some cases video evidence of the Russian soldiers gunning them down for no reason. You speak of "rhyme or reason"? Soldiers murder civilians because they've been ordered to, or because they've been keyed up through propaganda, or because they're simply angry and out for revenge and a civilian is an easy defenseless target.
Plenty of the dead in Bucha were women and children.
How many other Buchas have there been, which we simply don't have the same degree of video evidence of? There is no reason to believe that the Russians acted uniquely in Bucha.
The US absolutely targets power infrastructure in wars, and it's ordinarily a legitimate military target. The big difference here is that Russia ignored those targets for a loooooong time, clearly indicating that Russia didn't consider them targets.
Then, late in the war, when Russia was coming up with new terror ideas for its iranian drone offensive, it settled on power and water infrastructure. And we know that shutting down the power has no effect on Ukrainian military units since they all have generators. Looking at the individualized facts of this situation, it is clear to me that the Russian motive here is to specifically try to break the morale of the Ukrainians through terror attacks designed to inflict hardship and death.
Now, if the Russians had gone all out on power plants right at the beginning of the war, I wouldn't be criticizing it the same way at all. Context matters. Actions might look legitimate in 1 context, and illegitimate in another.
No, it's genuine. Your attitude on this is Russian projection.
The West takes pains to avoid hitting civilian targets, and once in a while, mistakes are made. The key difference is that it isn't intentional. Also our enemies, particularly muslims, invest great effort at hiding their terrorist meetings in the contexts of things like weddings in order to deter bombing, and to exploit it for propaganda if the bombing happens anyway.
There are countless videos of muslims combatants in iraq and afghanistan running full speed for the nearest mosque once they came under fire. IMO if your enemy is going to hide behind women and children or run into mosques, you hit the target anyway and blame the enemy for the result.
Serbia violated the "rules-based international order". NATO's bombing was 100% consistent. Of course the EU imposes much stricter rules on its own area than are applied more broadly elsewhere in the world.
I'm not aware of any country destroyed by the West. Example?
Ukraine doesn't engage in area shelling of civilian areas. The one time I heard of a Ukrainian commander doing it a little bit, he was reassigned and punished.
Russia invades to engage in wars of conquest and empire building. The US only invades to protect the West and preserve the West's norms of order.
Yep. The west did absolutely nothing to stop Azerbaijan, because Armenia is a client state of Russia and it was Russia's job to protect it.
And did Russia do anything to help Armenia? No. Looks like Russia is a pretty shit ally and nobody should ever be Russia's ally ever again. Armenia proved that a Russian alliance is worthless.
“If only one man dies of hunger, that is a tragedy. If millions die, that’s only statistics.”
In the West, the enormous death toll of the Soviets and Chinese are just meaningless numbers on a page. The Korean Comfort Women, which is a trifling and massively exaggerated thing, get enormous attention because South Korea is part of the West and never shuts the fuck up about it. Normies think 100% of comfort women were Korean, when it was less than half. Normies think 100% of the victims of the Holocaust were jews, when it was only about half.
The degree of attention focused on a thing warps the perception of that thing. This warped perception then gets recycled into "common knowledge".