A Russian war reporter was killed and three were wounded in Ukraine on Saturday in what the defence ministry said was a Ukrainian attack using cluster munitions, prompting outrage from Moscow.
The amount of pearl clutching and disinformation Russia does when ukraine does literally anything, means we have to point out the bs when we see it against ukraine. But yes it would be better if people weren’t killed.
If they are fabricating propaganda, why would they go to the front line? Why risk their life when, according to you, they’re just going to make everything up and say what they want anyway? Seems like the easier, safer, and more effective propaganda would simply not involve going to the front line and instead sitting in a news room, with some CGI if they’re feeling fancy, or using old footage if they’re not, and propagating that?
Moreover, just because you don’t like what a journalist is reporting, you can’t condone killing journalists.
Are you also saying it’d be ok to kill Russian medics, since after all, they’re just saving the lives of “Russian war criminals”? Should we suddenly open up the rules of war to allow killing medics on the side we’re fighting? The logic you’re using to defend the killing of journalists, when applied evenly, would say yes, we should allow killing of enemy medics.
Fortunately though, the Geneva Convention disagrees with your faulty logic and recognizes that non-combat roles including medics and journalists can not be targeted and indeed care should be taken to not inadvertently kill them.
So you ignore the actual argument I made, how your logic, evenly applied, would apply to killing medics as well. And you ignore the fact that your opinion here is against the Geneva Convention. You conveniently ignore the part where you don’t have to target them to have killing them be a problem; killing them is the problem. And your only retort is whataboutism: “yeah but Russia does bad”.
Take a look back at my comment. Apply the reasoning, and tell me: do you think we should allow killing enemy medics? If not, explain to me your contradictory stance.
No. You are building a massive strawman. I never even said a word about medics.
I guess you don’t understand how this works. I’m not building a strawman, as I’m literally describing the Geneva Convention’s justification for why your opinion is nonsensical to hold. I’m simply asking you to extend your “logic” to an identical situation that, in my opinion, is more enlightening as to why your argument is faulty. They are both non-combat roles, and the justification for protecting them in a war setting is identical.
You conveniently ignore everything Russia has done. Tell me, is Russia following Geneva conventions and Nuremberg principles?
I see that you don’t actually care to have an honest discussion. I haven’t mentioned anything Russia has done; I haven’t justified anything Russia has done. You think me pointing out that Ukraine has done something wrong, and that your defense of that is bad, is somehow equivalent to defending Russia.
It seems, unless you want to try to actually respond to the points I’ve raised, that you’re content in your disagreement with the Geneva Convention. As such, your faked concern about Russia’s supposed violation of the Geneva Convention is just that: faked.
Do you honestly think western reporting on the war is honest?
Of all the gigs that journalists do, reporting on “war” is the toughest. Not because of the dangers – though these must not to be underestimated. But when reporting “war”, journalists face off against the world’s most powerful vested interests and compete with society’s deepest cultural mythologies.
At its best, the Fourth Estate uncovered the My Lai massacre, the Abu Ghraib scandal and the incestuous relations in the Bush era of retired military officers, the US Defence Department and the “defence” industry.
In this incarnation, the Fourth Estate frightened even Napoleon. In his words:
“Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.”
But the military’s “reality” is powerful, insidious and covert. It is seductive.
And I, for one, am not speaking for Russia when I criticise peoples’ happiness over the fact that a journalist has been killed in a war zone, just because they were Russian.
Why would he need to be on a battlefield and take useless risk for that? If all his job is to publish propaganda dictated by the Kremlin he can do it remote working from his living room.
You people never stop to think before commenting holy shit. Please go back to reddit.
Russia claims all manner of outlandish drivel. If a journalist is killed by munitions you’ve been using for over a year yourself in a warzone you created I bring out my tiny violin.
By that same logic, Russia should shed no tears if those munitions kill journalists who can simply be rebranded propagandists. Hence the need not to judge whether a journalist is a propagandist and to avoid killing civilians holding press cards.
(Aside: Russia would be right in saying that the West locks up it’s journalists, especially those who highlight war crimes, and could point to one resident of Belmarsh in particular as incontrovertible evidence.)
Did you miss the part where it says the victim was a reporter?
Did you miss the part where he voluntarily went to an active battlefield as part of a violent invading force?
With a pen and paper.
Just bomb around that guy with pen and paper. Easy.
Yes, obviously, and avoid weapons that knowingly cause collateral damage.
Russia avoids collateral damage by intending to kill journos and civilians. It really is that easy :)
Did you ever hear the phrase, ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’?
The amount of pearl clutching and disinformation Russia does when ukraine does literally anything, means we have to point out the bs when we see it against ukraine. But yes it would be better if people weren’t killed.
To spew Putin’s propaganda
If they are fabricating propaganda, why would they go to the front line? Why risk their life when, according to you, they’re just going to make everything up and say what they want anyway? Seems like the easier, safer, and more effective propaganda would simply not involve going to the front line and instead sitting in a news room, with some CGI if they’re feeling fancy, or using old footage if they’re not, and propagating that?
Moreover, just because you don’t like what a journalist is reporting, you can’t condone killing journalists.
Are you also saying it’d be ok to kill Russian medics, since after all, they’re just saving the lives of “Russian war criminals”? Should we suddenly open up the rules of war to allow killing medics on the side we’re fighting? The logic you’re using to defend the killing of journalists, when applied evenly, would say yes, we should allow killing of enemy medics.
Fortunately though, the Geneva Convention disagrees with your faulty logic and recognizes that non-combat roles including medics and journalists can not be targeted and indeed care should be taken to not inadvertently kill them.
It makes their propaganda look legitimate. Do you honestly think Russian reporting on the war is honest.
No one is talking about targeting journalists. But it’s rich Russia suddenly has scruples considering their own war crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
So you ignore the actual argument I made, how your logic, evenly applied, would apply to killing medics as well. And you ignore the fact that your opinion here is against the Geneva Convention. You conveniently ignore the part where you don’t have to target them to have killing them be a problem; killing them is the problem. And your only retort is whataboutism: “yeah but Russia does bad”.
Take a look back at my comment. Apply the reasoning, and tell me: do you think we should allow killing enemy medics? If not, explain to me your contradictory stance.
No. You are building a massive strawman. I never even said a word about medics.
You conveniently ignore everything Russia has done. Tell me, is Russia following Geneva conventions and Nuremberg principles?
I guess you don’t understand how this works. I’m not building a strawman, as I’m literally describing the Geneva Convention’s justification for why your opinion is nonsensical to hold. I’m simply asking you to extend your “logic” to an identical situation that, in my opinion, is more enlightening as to why your argument is faulty. They are both non-combat roles, and the justification for protecting them in a war setting is identical.
I see that you don’t actually care to have an honest discussion. I haven’t mentioned anything Russia has done; I haven’t justified anything Russia has done. You think me pointing out that Ukraine has done something wrong, and that your defense of that is bad, is somehow equivalent to defending Russia.
It seems, unless you want to try to actually respond to the points I’ve raised, that you’re content in your disagreement with the Geneva Convention. As such, your faked concern about Russia’s supposed violation of the Geneva Convention is just that: faked.
Do you honestly think western reporting on the war is honest?
From https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/embedded-journalism-and-msm-war-propaganda,7045
And I, for one, am not speaking for Russia when I criticise peoples’ happiness over the fact that a journalist has been killed in a war zone, just because they were Russian.
It is 100 times more honest than Russia’s. You are clearly a Putin apologist.
I’m unsure if this is deliberate misinterpretation or an unfortunate misunderstanding. Still, congratulations for completely missing my point.
Removed by mod
Again, the same thing that Russia could say about western/Ukrainian journalists. Hence the need to agree not to kill journalists.
The difference is, Russia is lying.
About what?
Everything!
This is not a relevant point.
Why would he need to be on a battlefield and take useless risk for that? If all his job is to publish propaganda dictated by the Kremlin he can do it remote working from his living room.
You people never stop to think before commenting holy shit. Please go back to reddit.
https://twitter.com/reshetz/status/1682778307568205824
And his gun
Propagandist. They locked up all the reporters in Russia.
Again, Russia could use the same logic with the west/Ukraine. Hence the rule to not kill journalists.
Russia claims all manner of outlandish drivel. If a journalist is killed by munitions you’ve been using for over a year yourself in a warzone you created I bring out my tiny violin.
By that same logic, Russia should shed no tears if those munitions kill journalists who can simply be rebranded propagandists. Hence the need not to judge whether a journalist is a propagandist and to avoid killing civilians holding press cards.
(Aside: Russia would be right in saying that the West locks up it’s journalists, especially those who highlight war crimes, and could point to one resident of Belmarsh in particular as incontrovertible evidence.)
Russia can and does lie to justify their actions. So you’re right that they can lie and then do whatever they want, as they always do.
And the West does not lock up all of its journalists. Dissent is literally illegal in Russia.
If you think dissent is legal in the west, you haven’t been paying attention.