RugbyRebels

There are no neutral media outlets out there, only ones that conform to your view (or vice versa). Arguing about which is the bestest is a bit daft guys.

OptimisticJock wrote:There are no neutral media outlets out there, only ones that conform to your view (or vice versa). Arguing about which is the bestest is a bit daft guys.

I think I may have had this discussion previously over bias. It certainly feels like De ja vu.

We've certainly discussed this all before, yes. De ja vu all over again. . .

Sandydragon wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:There are no neutral media outlets out there, only ones that conform to your view (or vice versa). Arguing about which is the bestest is a bit daft guys.

I think I may have had this discussion previously over bias. It certainly feels like De ja vu.

Probably. Don't really drop in here as much as in the old days but it does look rather familiar.

Completely unrelated..

You ever in Lash? It's on the verge of falling to the taliban. No matter how much I was expecting or how many areas I see fall it still fucks me off. Started yesterday on the wrong foot reading about it

OptimisticJock wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:There are no neutral media outlets out there, only ones that conform to your view (or vice versa). Arguing about which is the bestest is a bit daft guys.

I think I may have had this discussion previously over bias. It certainly feels like De ja vu.

Probably. Don't really drop in here as much as in the old days but it does look rather familiar.

Completely unrelated..

You ever in Lash? It's on the verge of falling to the taliban. No matter how much I was expecting or how many areas I see fall it still fucks me off. Started yesterday on the wrong foot reading about it

I spent some time there. Used to get a better nights kip than at Bastion. I saw a piece on that in the Times today; it appears all those optimistic reports on how far advanced the Afghan security forces were, and how we could all clear out, were just b*llocks after all, as most people on the ground knew.

Sandydragon wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: I think I may have had this discussion previously over bias. It certainly feels like De ja vu.

Probably. Don't really drop in here as much as in the old days but it does look rather familiar.

Completely unrelated..

You ever in Lash? It's on the verge of falling to the taliban. No matter how much I was expecting or how many areas I see fall it still fucks me off. Started yesterday on the wrong foot reading about it

I spent some time there. Used to get a better nights kip than at Bastion. I saw a piece on that in the Times today; it appears all those optimistic reports on how far advanced the Afghan security forces were, and how we could all clear out, were just b*llocks after all, as most people on the ground knew.

Yeah it was a tidy wee FOB.

When I heard we were stopping HERRICK I didn't think it would annoy me this much seeing these areas fall.

OptimisticJock wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote: Probably. Don't really drop in here as much as in the old days but it does look rather familiar.

Completely unrelated..

You ever in Lash? It's on the verge of falling to the taliban. No matter how much I was expecting or how many areas I see fall it still fucks me off. Started yesterday on the wrong foot reading about it

I spent some time there. Used to get a better nights kip than at Bastion. I saw a piece on that in the Times today; it appears all those optimistic reports on how far advanced the Afghan security forces were, and how we could all clear out, were just b*llocks after all, as most people on the ground knew.

Yeah it was a tidy wee FOB.

When I heard we were stopping HERRICK I didn't think it would annoy me this much seeing these areas fall.

Natural mate. I felt much the same with Iraq. All that hard work pissed down the drain because of political stupidity.

When I was last at Lash there was a Danish SF contingent who could always be relied on to provide good hospitality.

There is the private message function for chit chatting about your jollies in Helmand, guys. Let's keep this thread on topic, no?

dry them.

I'm sure you can still argue about who's media is the best despite those few posts (which were done before you started greeting).

Sandydragon wrote:Hes not wrong though, especially when the Russian military shows its own video of them deploying the weapons. And Bellingcat is no more propaganda than some of the 'alternative' news site listed on here.

You are right, I've looked into it - these are indeed incendiary cluster bombs attached to the aircraft. My doubts again are focused on whether they were used on civilians areas, the only source for that given is this same disinformation organisation White Helmets.

Pictures of incendiary bombs attached to aircraft are about as meaningful as the following of an MK-77 on a USAF plane:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_b ... _FA-18.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb

Also saw this in the wiki:

However the United States reserved the right to use incendiary weapons against military objectives located in concentrations of civilians where it is judged that such use would cause fewer casualties and/or less collateral damage than alternative weapons.

Let's roundly condemn both US and Russia for their casual attitude towards civilian deaths, yeah?

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Hes not wrong though, especially when the Russian military shows its own video of them deploying the weapons. And Bellingcat is no more propaganda than some of the 'alternative' news site listed on here.

You are right, I've looked into it - these are indeed incendiary cluster bombs attached to the aircraft. My doubts again are focused on whether they were used on civilians areas, the only source for that given is this same disinformation organisation White Helmets.

Pictures of incendiary bombs attached to aircraft are about as meaningful as the following of an MK-77 on a USAF plane:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_b ... _FA-18.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb

Also saw this in the wiki:

However the United States reserved the right to use incendiary weapons against military objectives located in concentrations of civilians where it is judged that such use would cause fewer casualties and/or less collateral damage than alternative weapons.

Let's roundly condemn both US and Russia for their casual attitude towards civilian deaths, yeah?

Russia is indiscriminately attacking civilian areas. When the US does anything remotely to the same scale you might have a point.

Incidentally, used incendiary munitions have been found on the ground in Aleppo, so there is a bit more to it than just being seen on a plane.

Combatants are obliged to minimise the impact of weapons on civilians, that is what the US doctrine refers to. From the evidence available from Syria, are you seriously suggesting that the Russian Air Force is taking the same precautions?

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Hes not wrong though, especially when the Russian military shows its own video of them deploying the weapons. And Bellingcat is no more propaganda than some of the 'alternative' news site listed on here.

You are right, I've looked into it - these are indeed incendiary cluster bombs attached to the aircraft. My doubts again are focused on whether they were used on civilians areas, the only source for that given is this same disinformation organisation White Helmets.

Pictures of incendiary bombs attached to aircraft are about as meaningful as the following of an MK-77 on a USAF plane:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_b ... _FA-18.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb

Also saw this in the wiki:

However the United States reserved the right to use incendiary weapons against military objectives located in concentrations of civilians where it is judged that such use would cause fewer casualties and/or less collateral damage than alternative weapons.

Let's roundly condemn both US and Russia for their casual attitude towards civilian deaths, yeah?

Russia is indiscriminately attacking civilian areas. When the US does anything remotely to the same scale you might have a point.

Incidentally, used incendiary munitions have been found on the ground in Aleppo, so there is a bit more to it than just being seen on a plane.

1) Are remains of munitions movable?
2) Are there civilians in all parts of Aleppo?

Not saying it didn't happen, but let's be cautious before we accept propaganda at face value.

What I don't get, and I'm not necessarily accusing you of it having not really conversed with you on the latest 2 incarnations of RR, is why people wish to be cautious (or completely disregard no matter what) this type of "propoganda" yet blindly accept whatever the Russians say.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
You are right, I've looked into it - these are indeed incendiary cluster bombs attached to the aircraft. My doubts again are focused on whether they were used on civilians areas, the only source for that given is this same disinformation organisation White Helmets.

Pictures of incendiary bombs attached to aircraft are about as meaningful as the following of an MK-77 on a USAF plane:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_b ... _FA-18.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb

Also saw this in the wiki:


Let's roundly condemn both US and Russia for their casual attitude towards civilian deaths, yeah?

Russia is indiscriminately attacking civilian areas. When the US does anything remotely to the same scale you might have a point.

Incidentally, used incendiary munitions have been found on the ground in Aleppo, so there is a bit more to it than just being seen on a plane.

1) Are remains of munitions movable?
2) Are there civilians in all parts of Aleppo?

Not saying it didn't happen, but let's be cautious before we accept propaganda at face value.

Second point first. There are still large numbers in Aleppo. All combatants need to take care to avoid undue civilian casualties, which means avoiding indiscriminate attacks. That is a legal requirement.

First point. You could move a used canister. But it would look very odd if a used canister were found in an area with no evidence of incendiary weapon use. You might reasonably question a one off attack, yet HRW have highlighted numerous attacks in their report, which is now a bit dated.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/11/05/con ... ry-weapons

OptimisticJock wrote:What I don't get, and I'm not necessarily accusing you of it having not really conversed with you on the latest 2 incarnations of RR, is why people wish to be cautious (or completely disregard no matter what) this type of "propoganda" yet blindly accept whatever the Russians say.

Well, in truth people tend to accept propaganda that confirms their already held beliefs. That's a general principle that studies have shown.

As for why do I prefer to be cautious, it's mostly because I enjoy digging deep into the topic. By digging deeper, I often learn new things, which is something I enjoy.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Russia is indiscriminately attacking civilian areas. When the US does anything remotely to the same scale you might have a point.

Incidentally, used incendiary munitions have been found on the ground in Aleppo, so there is a bit more to it than just being seen on a plane.

1) Are remains of munitions movable?
2) Are there civilians in all parts of Aleppo?

Not saying it didn't happen, but let's be cautious before we accept propaganda at face value.

Second point first. There are still large numbers in Aleppo. All combatants need to take care to avoid undue civilian casualties, which means avoiding indiscriminate attacks. That is a legal requirement.

First point. You could move a used canister. But it would look very odd if a used canister were found in an area with no evidence of incendiary weapon use. You might reasonably question a one off attack, yet HRW have highlighted numerous attacks in their report, which is now a bit dated.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/11/05/con ... ry-weapons

Regarding your point about my second point: wiki has the population as of 2015 at 40,000, down from a pre-war population of over 2 million. This means it is at most 2% of its normal population. To me that would indicate that there must be vast areas of the city uninhabited, no?

Regarding your point about my first point: There do seem to have been incendiary use by Syria that has harmed civilians. I can't imagine that they'd target civilians intentionally though, I just can't see the purpose, so it must be carelessness - which of course doesn't excuse it. Perhaps desperation could be an explanation. It is an existential struggle after all, unlike our recent wars, which have not been existential struggles for us, so I do feel that we should be careful comparing standards. Btw, I assume incendiary bombs are not primarily aimed at killing people, right? Do they have a specific tactical purpose normally, from a military point of view?

Zhivago wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:What I don't get, and I'm not necessarily accusing you of it having not really conversed with you on the latest 2 incarnations of RR, is why people wish to be cautious (or completely disregard no matter what) this type of "propoganda" yet blindly accept whatever the Russians say.

Well, in truth people tend to accept propaganda that confirms their already held beliefs. That's a general principle that studies have shown.

As for why do I prefer to be cautious, it's mostly because I enjoy digging deep into the topic. By digging deeper, I often learn new things, which is something I enjoy.

And how do you know, in instances like this, that what you're digging into is the truth or not? Without being there you can not verify what you're seeing/reading so are submitting to confirmation bias again.

Fair play for trying to seek an alternative view though.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
1) Are remains of munitions movable?
2) Are there civilians in all parts of Aleppo?

Not saying it didn't happen, but let's be cautious before we accept propaganda at face value.

Second point first. There are still large numbers in Aleppo. All combatants need to take care to avoid undue civilian casualties, which means avoiding indiscriminate attacks. That is a legal requirement.

First point. You could move a used canister. But it would look very odd if a used canister were found in an area with no evidence of incendiary weapon use. You might reasonably question a one off attack, yet HRW have highlighted numerous attacks in their report, which is now a bit dated.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/11/05/con ... ry-weapons

Regarding your point about my second point: wiki has the population as of 2015 at 40,000, down from a pre-war population of over 2 million. This means it is at most 2% of its normal population. To me that would indicate that there must be vast areas of the city uninhabited, no?

Regarding your point about my first point: There do seem to have been incendiary use by Syria that has harmed civilians. I can't imagine that they'd target civilians intentionally though, I just can't see the purpose, so it must be carelessness - which of course doesn't excuse it. Perhaps desperation could be an explanation. It is an existential struggle after all, unlike our recent wars, which have not been existential struggles for us, so I do feel that we should be careful comparing standards. Btw, I assume incendiary bombs are not primarily aimed at killing people, right? Do they have a specific tactical purpose normally, from a military point of view?

Some (maybe even all) incendiary weapons aren't allowed to be used on people and are for destroying targets, equipment or marking areas.

As for the intentional targeting of civis you're being naive if you don't think they're at it. Fear is the first thing that springs to mind as a reason.

OptimisticJock wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:What I don't get, and I'm not necessarily accusing you of it having not really conversed with you on the latest 2 incarnations of RR, is why people wish to be cautious (or completely disregard no matter what) this type of "propoganda" yet blindly accept whatever the Russians say.

Well, in truth people tend to accept propaganda that confirms their already held beliefs. That's a general principle that studies have shown.

As for why do I prefer to be cautious, it's mostly because I enjoy digging deep into the topic. By digging deeper, I often learn new things, which is something I enjoy.

And how do you know, in instances like this, that what you're digging into is the truth or not? Without being there you can not verify what you're seeing/reading so are submitting to confirmation bias again.

Fair play for trying to seek an alternative view though.

Well some things are simply facts, I'll give some examples:

1) The Russian video did show indendiary cluster bombs on their planes - FACT - I checked the markings online RBK - ZAB - yup it's cluster munitions alright.

2) The White Helmets have disseminated propaganda before - FACT - social media posts from them have been shown up to reuse old photos of unrelated incidents in order to score points. This I have substantiated. Another FACT - they were founded by an ex British Army Officer - just makes me question the purpose a bit. FACT - they are funded by US and UK foreign governments openly.

But also it's important to notice when the propaganda like bellingcat produces mixes facts with unsubstantiated claims - they are not always verifiable of course, so naturally I am cautious when this is the case. Over time, when I have investigated news from a source and it has proven to be reliable, I begin to trust it more, and reduce my investigations.

I don't expect most people to do this. I mostly do this because I genuinely enjoy it.

OptimisticJock wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Second point first. There are still large numbers in Aleppo. All combatants need to take care to avoid undue civilian casualties, which means avoiding indiscriminate attacks. That is a legal requirement.

First point. You could move a used canister. But it would look very odd if a used canister were found in an area with no evidence of incendiary weapon use. You might reasonably question a one off attack, yet HRW have highlighted numerous attacks in their report, which is now a bit dated.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/11/05/con ... ry-weapons

Regarding your point about my second point: wiki has the population as of 2015 at 40,000, down from a pre-war population of over 2 million. This means it is at most 2% of its normal population. To me that would indicate that there must be vast areas of the city uninhabited, no?

Regarding your point about my first point: There do seem to have been incendiary use by Syria that has harmed civilians. I can't imagine that they'd target civilians intentionally though, I just can't see the purpose, so it must be carelessness - which of course doesn't excuse it. Perhaps desperation could be an explanation. It is an existential struggle after all, unlike our recent wars, which have not been existential struggles for us, so I do feel that we should be careful comparing standards. Btw, I assume incendiary bombs are not primarily aimed at killing people, right? Do they have a specific tactical purpose normally, from a military point of view?

Some (maybe even all) incendiary weapons aren't allowed to be used on people and are for destroying targets, equipment or marking areas.

As for the intentional targeting of civis you're being naive if you don't think they're at it. Fear is the first thing that springs to mind as a reason.

Ok, maybe they could use fear tactics to try to clear the city of civilians. Could be.

Regarding your first point, so the incendiary devices could have been targeted at legitimate targets?

Of course they could be but they are horrible when used against humans so are perfect if you want to spread fear whilst killing and mutilating at the same time.

OptimisticJock wrote:Of course they could be but they are horrible when used against humans so are perfect if you want to spread fear whilst killing and mutilating at the same time.

What sort of military targets would be appropriate for destruction with incendiary bombs? It could help in my further investigations...

Zhivago wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:Of course they could be but they are horrible when used against humans so are perfect if you want to spread fear whilst killing and mutilating at the same time.

What sort of military targets would be appropriate for destruction with incendiary bombs? It could help in my further investigations...

Anything you need to burn or burn through really so anything with a lot of armour/protection or anything you want to deny.

We would carry phosphorus grenades in case we had to leave a vehicle/kit, for instance.

OptimisticJock wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:Of course they could be but they are horrible when used against humans so are perfect if you want to spread fear whilst killing and mutilating at the same time.

What sort of military targets would be appropriate for destruction with incendiary bombs? It could help in my further investigations...

Anything you need to burn or burn through really so anything with a lot of armour/protection or anything you want to deny.

We would carry phosphorus grenades in case we had to leave a vehicle/kit, for instance.

The bombs seem to have been dropped in a rebel salient. Hmm...

Zhivago wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:Of course they could be but they are horrible when used against humans so are perfect if you want to spread fear whilst killing and mutilating at the same time.

What sort of military targets would be appropriate for destruction with incendiary bombs? It could help in my further investigations...

People.

Think Gulf War 89/90 and the Iraqi Republican Guard dug in the desert. No non combatants to get in the way, so it was carpet bombing and incendiary attacks.