Todd_is_God Posted November 18, 2022 Share Posted November 18, 2022 13 minutes ago, ICTChris said: The post was pointing out that the Ukrainians were following standard procedure for taking surrendering soldiers - having them lie down one by one to be searched. The video then shows an attack by a Russian soldier and cuts out - the cameraman was apparently killed. There is a subsequent video of the same area with what looks like all the surrendering soldiers dead. So it seems that in response to the attack the Ukrainians opened fire with the weapons used for covering the surrender. Whether that happened in the fight or whether they were shot afterwards isn’t shown. The post above talking about military protocol makes sense tbh, with regards to the enemy soldier who decided to open fire. Without a video of the whole thing then no-one can say exactly what happened. Nothing in the twitter thread suggests that one enemy soldier opening fire is a green light to just go ahead and kill the rest of those surrendering, though, so unless Thomas C. Theiner has access to footage no-one else has seen, his definite assurance that no war crime took place here appears to be based on nothing more than those potentially committing it being "the good guys" and therefore could not possibly do wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted November 18, 2022 Share Posted November 18, 2022 4 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: The post above talking about military protocol makes sense tbh, with regards to the enemy soldier who decided to open fire. Without a video of the whole thing then no-one can say exactly what happened. Nothing in the twitter thread suggests that one enemy soldier opening fire is a green light to just go ahead and kill the rest of those surrendering, though, so unless Thomas C. Theiner has access to footage no-one else has seen, his definite assurance that no war crime took place here appears to be based on nothing more than those potentially committing it being "the good guys" and therefore could not possibly do wrong. The video shows that the a Russian soldier opened fire while the others were surrendering. There is then a drone shot of the site showing the shooter and many Russian soldiers dead - it looks like all of them. They could have been killed in the fire fight after the Russian attacked or they could have been shot afterwards in cold blood. The harsh truth is that if a surrendering soldier opens fire then the other soldiers who surrendered are a threat, so would likely be targeted in an exchange of fire. The fact that all of them seem to have died suggests that at least some could have been killed afterwards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted November 18, 2022 Share Posted November 18, 2022 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, ICTChris said: The post was pointing out that the Ukrainians were following standard procedure for taking surrendering soldiers - having them lie down one by one to be searched. Well no, it claims that there's both i) a standard procedure for taking surrendered soldiers in a conflict and ii) this is actually what happened. Here's a quote from the meathead thread: Quote If the enemy wants to surrender but outnumbers you, then you tell the enemy soldiers to move unarmed and with their hands up to a spot in front of one or two of your machine guns. How is the first part of that apparently universal law of war verified? How many enemy forces voluntarily surrender while outnumbering the opponent? There's no VAR official running around to adjudicate that. Straightforward logic suggests that the opponent surrendering considers themselves to be outnumbered when chucking in the towel. So the meathead's fantasist textbook doesn't even stack up logically, never mind being distributed to Ukrainian or Russian conscript soldiers. It's an utter horseshit argument. To be clear, I don't expect Ukrainian forces to magically follow those horseshit rules either. Prisoners of war should be taken but atrocities in this type of surrender/then somebody fires at the capturing force situations have happened in every modern theatre of combat. It's a carbon copy of monthly occurrences on both the Western and Eastern Fronts of the First World War. That's the straightforward conclusion here. Making up some magic law of taking prisoners that the perfidious Russians had the temerity to break is just risible nonsense. Edited November 19, 2022 by vikingTON 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxRover Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 3 hours ago, virginton said: *sweep sweep sweep* I'm not sure what 'military experience' can offer to that objectively nonsense hot take. It's not feudal Europe and so there isn't a universal surrender procedure that crosses all cultural or contextual boundaries. When was this agreed on exactly - and in which European conflicts alone of the 20th/21st century was this practiced? Who exactly is doing the objective head count on which side has the larger force before surrendering from a vicious firefight and so following the set protocol? What of they think that they're the smaller force (hence the surrender)? There isn't some shan VAR official overseeing things. It absolutely does happen all the time and conflicts like WW1 and WW2 were packed with such instances involving every single major combatant. It's an understandable but dark feature of war regardless of the perpetrator. Victim-blaming or pretending it simply didn't happen is not a great look though coming from the same camp that quickly abandoned their outrage about those Polish civilians killed earlier this week, once it turned out to be the 'wrong' country responsible for it. Word salad 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxRover Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 37 minutes ago, virginton said: Well no, it claims that there's both i) a standard procedure for taking surrendered soldiers in a conflict and ii) this is actually what happened. Here's a quote from the meathead thread: How is the first part of that apparently universal law of war verified? How many enemy forces voluntarily surrender while outnumbering the opponent? There's no VAR official running around to adjudicate that. Straightforward logic suggests that the opponent surrendering considers themselves to be outnumbered when chucking in the towel. So the meathead's fantasist textbook doesn't even stack up logically, never mind being distributed to Ukrainian or Russian conscript soldiers. It's an utter horseshit argument. To be clear, I don't expect Ukrainian forces to magically follow those horseshit rules either. Prisoners of war should be taken but atrocities in this type of surrender/then somebody fires at the capturing force situations have happened in every modern theatre of combat. It's a carbon copy of monthly occurrences on both the Western and Eastern Fronts of the First World War. That's the straightforward conclusion here. Making up some magic law of taking prisoners that the perfidious Russians had the temerity to break is just risible nonsense. More word salad, but, please VT, enlighten us on your military experience. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 It doesn't require any military experience whatsoever to grasp that the treatment of 'surrendering' enemy forces overlaps with brutal massacres in an enormous and reliably high number of cases. All that takes is an understanding of modern history. You can obtain that understanding as an amateur by actually reading about how modern conflicts have worked in practice. As opposed to the Texan Meathead school of 'surrender rules' which, err, certainly didn't apply to Afghanistan. Or Iraq. Or Vietnam. It's almost as if this 'military insight' might just be total bollocks! The other option would be to become a qualified historian but I really don't fancy your chances going down that path. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanius Mullarkey Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 10 hours ago, Abdul_Latif said: Star Wars is shite and for un-trustable weirdos. @KnightswoodBear 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Bully Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 6 hours ago, TxRover said: More word salad, but, please VT, enlighten us on your military experience. You can be an expert in absolutely everything without any experience you know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 War is Hell. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 8 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said: War is Hell. Bringing back the good old days? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salvo Montalbano Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 I'm neither a historian or a soldier but know of several times when people have surrendered despite being the larger numerical force. Having more men doesn't help if you have no food, no ammunition, no obvious routes of attack or retreat, have lost your commanders, are in a strategically weak position or have a force with low morale. Maybe you're right oaksoft... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 8 minutes ago, oaksoft said: It happens a lot. Aye, St Mirren capitulated to 9-man Rangers in 2010 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moomintroll Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 1 minute ago, Zen Archer (Raconteur) said: Aye, St Mirren capitulated to 9-man Rangers in 2010 Bravo, that will be the site down for a few hours soon. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 3 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said: I'm neither a historian or a soldier Well beat it then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 Just now, Moomintroll said: Bravo, that will be the site down for a few hours soon. It'll save him fucking time doing it later. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moomintroll Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 2 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said: Well beat it then. I'm not sure he is an expert on Michael Jackson either. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 The video in this case shows at least 12 Russians surrendering to four Ukrainians. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 I'm going out on a limb here but I'm beginning to think that you might not be the history expert you seem to have convinced yourself that you are.You've just noticed? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Joe Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 31 minutes ago, ICTChris said: The video in this case shows at least 12 Russians surrendering to four Ukrainians. There's an umpteenth time for everything 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.