> They are currently also bombing civilian areas, fully aware that they are civilian areas.
They might be "fully aware" that those areas are used by the "enemy" to stockpile materiel and gather personnel. That would make those areas legitimate targets. Can you prove a) there were no military targets there, or b) the attackers were "aware" there were no military targets there? I can't - nobody can. That's why when you allow a war to happen, we've all lost already. Everything after that is just choosing sides and framing events to align with your expectations/convictions. I don't like that because it distracts from the fundamental problem: that war and killing are just wrong, no matter who does it and how.
> They might be "fully aware" that those areas are used by the "enemy" to stockpile materiel and gather personnel.
You are approaching this from the wrong end. People like doctors or firefighters are multipliers, that is, they make the whole group stronger by a disproportional amount. A doctor can aid themselves and others with above average effectiveness. The same applies to firefighters. A professional firefighter is far more effective in putting out fires, removing debris, and saving people than an untrained civilian. Rationally it makes perfect sense to prioritize them in targeting, as Russians have done. By shooting at field hospitals or doing double-tap missile attacks on cities (first hit a crowded shopping center, and then send another missile 30 min later to hit first responders), you can murder doctors, paramedics and firefighters and harm the whole group by a disproportional amount.
Such perfect rationality combined with utter lack of humanity is why most people would call it pure evil.
Thanks. I was thinking more about the guy who actually put in the coordinates and pressed the button, and whether they were aware of what their action meant. I kind of forgot about the ones who gave the order and were aware of the whole picture. I think, if anyone, these are the people who deserve the hatred, and should be put on trial, definitely.
Good examples with hospitals. Even if there is a personnel in the hospital it is still a war crime to target it.
Russian army is full of war criminals(some of them have been drafter directly from prisons), they simply don't care about crimes. And that is true because international community also don't care, there is no enforcement.
Mass killing of civilians? It is ok for Russians.
Invasion into neighboring country? It is ok for Russians.
Destroying grain storage to cause price spikes and food instability in Africa? It is ok for Russians.
Piracy on the Black Sea? It is ok for Russians.
Blowing ammunition depots in Europe Union? It is ok for Russians.
And list goes on, but nobody cares if oil is flowing.
I am not going to prove anything to you. It's very well publicly documented, within 5 minutes of googling you can see hundreds of cases of russians targeting civilian infrastructure and civilians themselves. The only way you can deny it's happenning is if you decline to believe all of those cases, in which case there is no way you will believe anything anyone writes about the subject.
> the attackers were "aware" there were no military targets there? I can't - nobody can.
Except for obviously targeting civilians, they were for a period of time also targeting grain depots and even quite open about that, thus exposing your lie. A grain depot is not a military target unless the aim of the military operation is starving civilian population, which again is a crime against humanity.
Just look at the facts. russians aren't bombing civillian areas because they are legitimate targets, but because they want to and are encouraged to kill as many civillians as possible. How do you explain Bucha? Were the civillians who were shot also 'legitimate targets'? It's not 'choosing sides' and 'framing events', russia started this war and russia is the bad guy in this war. Why does anyone have to prove anything to you? It won't convince you to stop supporting russia anyway.
> but because they want to and are encouraged to kill as many civillians as possible?
How do you know that? Link please.
> it won't convince you to stop supporting russia anyway.
Exactly this. I'm saying that killing people is wrong and war shouldn't happen, and you're telling me I'm supporting Russia. That's precisely the level of irrationality I was talking about, thanks for demonstrating it.
They might be "fully aware" that those areas are used by the "enemy" to stockpile materiel and gather personnel. That would make those areas legitimate targets. Can you prove a) there were no military targets there, or b) the attackers were "aware" there were no military targets there? I can't - nobody can. That's why when you allow a war to happen, we've all lost already. Everything after that is just choosing sides and framing events to align with your expectations/convictions. I don't like that because it distracts from the fundamental problem: that war and killing are just wrong, no matter who does it and how.