Iran is sending a hell'va alot of weapons into Russia's campaign - Ukraine officials are now blaming Iran of murdering Ukraine civilians

[Hack-Hook]

Other sources say 200-500 civilians killed, but not who killed them.

Central American Human Rights Commission not youtube
and the rest of your post is excuses , excuses and excuses
in Lebanon the war after 30 day didn't even reached litany river 20km inside Lebanon . majority of civilian dead were in north and central Lebanon as war zone was evacuated and Israel bombed civilian infrastructure of Lebanon in central and northern part of Lebanon

At the same time, they whine about invented war crimes without even trying to provide evidence of crimes.

Anyone that knows the rules of neutrality can lecture you about it.

as far as i knew the only time i said its war-crime was when ukraine drop a grenade from drone on an injured soldier and the medics who were tried to help him .
now go on and lecture me on how its not a war-crime

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Central American Human Rights Commission not youtube
and the rest of your post is excuses , excuses and excuses
in Lebanon the war after 30 day didn't even reached litany river 20km inside Lebanon . majority of civilian dead were in north and central Lebanon as war zone was evacuated and Israel bombed civilian infrastructure of Lebanon in central and northern part of Lebanon

And the UN claims 500.
The references for your claim on the Wiki are Youtube clips.
Infrastructure is often supporting both military and civilians.

as far as i knew the only time i said its war-crime was when ukraine drop a grenade from drone on an injured soldier and the medics who were tried to help him .

now go on and lecture me on how its not a war-crime

You imply that the ratio of killed civilians vs killed combatants is somehow proof that something illegal happened.
You just now claimed that infrastructure was civilian without proof.
There is no war crime called ”killing a civilian”.
If a civilian dies in a war, it might or might not be a war crime.

Dropping a grenade from a drone on medical personel might or might not be a war crime. It depends on what the drone operator actually sees.

• Are the medical personel clearly marked as such?
• Do they carry arms incompatible with their status?
• Are they intermixed with soldiers engaged in combat?
• etc.

 

[Hack-Hook]

And the UN claims 500.
The references for your claim on the Wiki are Youtube clips.
Infrastructure is often supporting both military and civilians.

even 500 is several time the number of military personnel killed , so change nothing USA and NATO attack civilian indiscriminately .
and the source certainly more than reputable than a tailor in London who never put his foot on Syria and you guys liked to recite his tweets as facts about Syria

If a civilian dies in a war, it might or might not be a war crime.

yeah yeah yeah , I know . if Hezbollah and Russia or someone who is not in western campaign kill them its war-crime , if USA and NATO kill them it is acceptable collateral damage . there is no need to tell me that.

Dropping a grenade from a drone on medical personel might or might not be a war crime. It depends on what the drone operator actually sees.

• Are the medical personel clearly marked as such?
• Do they carry arms incompatible with their status?
• Are they intermixed with soldiers engaged in combat?
• etc.

what i saw it was clear that what they were doing and the situation of the injured soldier was clear.
by the way a question for you are NATO medics armed or not armed ?
and no the only fighting was grenade dropped by drone

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

even 500 is several time the number of military personnel killed , so change nothing USA and NATO attack civilian indiscriminately .
and the source certainly more than reputable than a tailor in London who never put his foot on Syria and you guys liked to recite his tweets as facts about Syria

Those are the numbers killed, and you make the assumption that they were all killed by the US. That is done without proof.

You also assume that numbers prove that attacks are indiscriminate. No proof.

I do not recite tweets.

yeah yeah yeah , I know . if Hezbollah and Russia or someone who is not in western campaign kill them its war-crime , if USA and NATO kill them it is acceptable collateral damage . there is no need to tell me that.

what i saw it was clear that what they were doing and the situation of the injured soldier was clear.
by the way a question for you are NATO medics armed or not armed ?
and no the only fighting was grenade dropped by drone

You do not understand that each situation generally needs an investigation because war crimes are all about intention and knowledge.
You can kill thousands of civilians, without committing a war crime. Another guy kills a single civilian and it is more criminal.

An attack is legal if the attacker has a reason to believe that the target has a military value. It does not matter if it has a military value or not. Rules of War does not make the assumption that soldiers are all-seeing gods like you seem to assume.

Medics are allowed to carry weapons for personal defense. They are not allowed to use them for offensive action.
A soldier without a red cross or similar sign is a legal target even if they are taking care of a wounded soldier.
As I have not seen the video, I cannot comment further.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I guess the video you are referring to is here.

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

what i see is that two projectile get intercepted by Ukrainian infrastructures not Ukraine air-defense one at 00:21 and another at what you see from 00:32 is not interception but some sort of flak cannon detonating and try to make a wall of shrapnel in front of the incoming projectiles and...

defence.pk

Here is a link to a picture of a Russian medic with a white armband containing a red cross.

https://eng.mil.ru/en/structure/okruga/south/news/more.htm?id=12403874@egNews

I certainly cannot see any such armbands on any soldiers in the video.
That is the requirement for them to be considered a protected person.

Unless you have better material, one cannot come to the conclusion that a war crime was committed.

 

[Hack-Hook]

I guess the video you are referring to is here.

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

what i see is that two projectile get intercepted by Ukrainian infrastructures not Ukraine air-defense one at 00:21 and another at what you see from 00:32 is not interception but some sort of flak cannon detonating and try to make a wall of shrapnel in front of the incoming projectiles and...

defence.pk

Here is a link to a picture of a Russian medic with a white armband containing a red cross.

https://eng.mil.ru/en/structure/okruga/south/news/more.htm?id=12403874@egNews

View attachment 898932

I certainly cannot see any such armbands on any soldiers in the video.
That is the requirement for them to be considered a protected person.

Unless you have better material, one cannot come to the conclusion that a war crime was committed.

such high quality video and attacking the injured who is out of fight is a war-crime in itself and the kit they carry show they are treating the person , how many usual soldier carry medical kit ? and since when Russian soldiers wearing white
by the way some Russian Medics

clearly they wear that armband . the only logo is on their backpack .
so that attack was awarcrime no matter how you want to spin it

 

[aziqbal]

And the UN claims 500.
The references for your claim on the Wiki are Youtube clips.
Infrastructure is often supporting both military and civilians.



You imply that the ratio of killed civilians vs killed combatants is somehow proof that something illegal happened.
You just now claimed that infrastructure was civilian without proof.
There is no war crime called ”killing a civilian”.
If a civilian dies in a war, it might or might not be a war crime.

Dropping a grenade from a drone on medical personel might or might not be a war crime. It depends on what the drone operator actually sees.

• Are the medical personel clearly marked as such?
• Do they carry arms incompatible with their status?
• Are they intermixed with soldiers engaged in combat?
• etc.

where does Sweden stand on Israel stealing Palestinian land and then holding the Euro Vision and Sweden clapping yeah yeah we did it

now its pay back time keep crying

Iran keeping with the Zulfiqar missiles and others

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

such high quality video and attacking the injured who is out of fight is a war-crime in itself and the kit they carry show they are treating the person , how many usual soldier carry medical kit ? and since when Russian soldiers wearing white
by the way some Russian Medics

clearly they wear that armband . the only logo is on their backpack .
so that attack was awarcrime no matter how you want to spin it

The Geneva Convention is clear about how to mark a Medic.
That is an armband, with the Red Cross or similar.
No Red Cross is visible in the video.
Conclusion: None of the soldiers is a protected person.

If you have a group of regular soldiers, where one is injured and the others try to patch him up, they are still a valid military target, because they are not bound by the rule that they cannot take offensive action.

By Your rule, you cannot fire two mortar bombs at a trench because you risk that you injure a soldier with the first mortar bomb, and then the second would be a war crime.
You have obviously either not read the Geneva Conventions, forgot what You read or invented your own rules.

 

[Hack-Hook]

The Geneva Convention is clear about how to mark a Medic.
That is an armband, with the Red Cross or similar.
No Red Cross is visible in the video.
Conclusion: None of the soldiers is a protected person.

the video is blurry and low quality , bring out a high quality video of the incident and then we talk if there is a sign or not
and Geneva convention protect the soldiers that are injured and can't participate in the war

By Your rule, you cannot fire two mortar bombs at a trench because you risk that you injure a soldier with the first mortar bomb, and then the second would be a war crime.

not my rule Geneva rule

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

the video is blurry and low quality , bring out a high quality video of the incident and then we talk if there is a sign or not

War crimes are about knowledge and intent.
If a drone operator cannot see an armband of a medic, he has not committed a crime.
It is not a war crime to ”fire at a medic”.
It is a war crime to fire at someone which you believe is a medic that behave according to the rules of the Geneva Conventions.

and Geneva convention protect the soldiers that are injured and can't participate in the war

not my rule Geneva rule

The Geneva Convention does not protect injured soldiers the way you think.

 

[Hack-Hook]

War crimes are about knowledge and intent.
If a drone operator cannot see an armband of a medic, he has not committed a crime.
It is not a war crime to ”fire at a medic”.
It is a war crime to fire at someone which you believe is a medic that behave according to the rules of the Geneva Conventions.

as you said warcrime is about intent , you are aware that a missile operator can't see its target also one person who operarte MLRS . now apply your logic to them

The Geneva Convention does not protect injured soldiers the way you think.

if from that point some people do some military operation , I don't see any military operation there . i see by your logic somebody can point that a kindergarten is not a protected area or a hospital.
by the way i point you to convention 2 and its side notes

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

as you said warcrime is about intent , you are aware that a missile operator can't see its target also one person who operarte MLRS . now apply your logic to them

An MLRS crew does not designate a target. They get coordinates from someone and that someone makes a judgement on whether a target is worth an MLRS strike. If they have reason to believe the target has a military value, it is not a war crime.
This is the general case, but there are ifs and buts.

if from that point some people do some military operation , I don't see any military operation there . i see by your logic somebody can point that a kindergarten is not a protected area or a hospital.

by the way i point you to convention 2 and its side notes

Russia is doing a military operation in Ukraine, and all Russian soldiers are valid military targets. Laws of War allow combatants to agree on areas that are not defended, allowing civilians some amount of safety.
Hospitals are always protected, unless they are put to military use.

There is no part of the Geneva Conventions that says that you cannot attack a bunch of enemies in a trench. Their presence jeopardizes any medic.

 

[Hack-Hook]

An MLRS crew does not designate a target. They get coordinates from someone and that someone makes a judgement on whether a target is worth an MLRS strike. If they have reason to believe the target has a military value, it is not a war crime.
This is the general case, but there are ifs and buts.

no the system is just a little inaccurate and if it hit civillian its their problem they were near target

Russia is doing a military operation in Ukraine, and all Russian soldiers are valid military targets. Laws of War allow combatants to agree on areas that are not defended, allowing civilians some amount of safety.
Hospitals are always protected, unless they are put to military use.

There is no part of the Geneva Conventions that says that you cannot attack a bunch of enemies in a trench. Their presence jeopardizes any medic.

convention II and its side notes

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

no the system is just a little inaccurate and if it hit civillian its their problem they were near target

It is not the presence of civilians which determines if an attack is illegal.
It is the lack of military value of a target.
If the scout has reason to believe that the target has a military value, then it is no crime. A soldier firing based on the information from other soldiers can never commit a war crime, unless he has reason to believe that the information is false.

convention II and its side notes

The convention points out which are protected persons, but as I said, the presense of a protected person does not make an attack on a military target illegal.

You have to be much more specific than refering to Geneva II.