Ukraine Conflict - Drei Kameraden

[BruceVC]

50 minutes ago, Gorth said:

…and that’s how it begins. Someone deciding what it’s best for others to see and not to see. Mentioning book burnings would be a cheap shot, but the thought did cross my mind.

 

edit: YouTube is a private company and as such has a lot of say over what goes on their platform and what not. Now if a government order them to selectively remove content, you have some real issues with censorship 

 

52 minutes ago, Gorth said:

…and that’s how it begins. Someone deciding what it’s best for others to see and not to see. Mentioning book burnings would be a cheap shot, but the thought did cross my mind.

 

edit: YouTube is a private company and as such has a lot of say over what goes on their platform and what not. Now if a government order them to selectively remove content, you have some real issues with censorship 

Gorthfuscious I share your concern about governments deciding on the media narrative which supports my criticism towards RT,  its the mouthpiece of Putin and the Kremlin and its pure propaganda. Its state controlled unlike CNN,BBC or Al-Jazeera which at best are state funded but not state controlled. CNN and BBC for  example often and on a regular basis criticizes the local government, you wont ever find that on the likes of RT 

Surly you would agree with me that propaganda is not the same as objective news? So you right, we should be very worried about media houses that are state controlled and decide what we see and what we dont see

Thats why its good RT has been banned and or blocked in many countries. It has been blocked in SA on our DSTV offering for example 

[Gorth]

I do not doubt for a moment YouTube is doing out of the goodness of their heart or anything resembling ethics. It’s a business decision based on what gives the most shareholder value and dividends in the long term. I stand by, that it’s not not the governments job to censor things based on likes and dislikes. If the government is in a state of war, actively participating in a war, maybe different rules apply (seems reasonable), but last time I checked, only Ukraine and Russia are part of the armed conflict

[Katphood]

Just listen to what she has to say. Not all politicians are bad. Some are brave enough to speak the truth. 

[Darkpriest]

This looks like a balls of steel suicide like engagement... 

 

[BruceVC]

28 minutes ago, Katphood said:

Just listen to what she has to say. Not all politicians are bad. Some are brave enough to speak the truth. 

She is entitled to her opinion but its definitely not the truth. The invasion of Afghanistan was not about access to the resources because what resources Afghanistan has are largely in tribal controlled areas or areas that arent safe to mine in for international companies and to this day most of resources are inaccessible 

The invasion of Afghanistan was about 9/11 and the irrefutable fact that AQ attacked the US and the reality that the Taliban were giving refuge to Bin Laden. It was  a perfectly  legitimate invasion unless someone thinks the US and its allies should have done nothing about 9/11?

Its also not about the race card, the Taliban took over Afghanistan and said they dont want the US or a Western presence in Afghanistan. So now the Taliban run the country why are we blaming the US for the state of the country and the anti-Western rhetoric from the Taliban ?

 

[BruceVC]

49 minutes ago, Gorth said:

I do not doubt for a moment YouTube is doing out of the goodness of their heart or anything resembling ethics. It’s a business decision based on what gives the most shareholder value and dividends in the long term. I stand by, that it’s not not the governments job to censor things based on likes and dislikes. If the government is in a state of war, actively participating in a war, maybe different rules apply (seems reasonable), but last time I checked, only Ukraine and Russia are part of the armed conflict

Im not sure I understand what you saying? Are you saying you angry and  concerned with YT banning RT but you not angry and concerned with basically all media in  Russia being state controlled and not telling the Russian people the truth about the invasion or showing the thousands of Russian citizens being arrested in anti-war protests?

So all you see from the likes of RT is an utterly biased and selective version of the reality of  Putins War both in Ukraine and the streets of cities like Moscow and St Pietersburg. Why would you want to exposure anyone to that false narrative ?

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

I do not doubt for a moment YouTube is doing out of the goodness of their heart or anything resembling ethics. It’s a business decision based on what gives the most shareholder value and dividends in the long term. I stand by, that it’s not not the governments job to censor things based on likes and dislikes. If the government is in a state of war, actively participating in a war, maybe different rules apply (seems reasonable), but last time I checked, only Ukraine and Russia are part of the armed conflict

RT is not only medium that youtube doesn't allow on their site. They have moderate their content from beginning based on what they think is good for their platform.

So I am not sure why people now think that youtube censor some media outlet when they have censored millions and millions users and outlets for decades. Is it because they don't publish videos from outlet that has multiple tv channels, web pages and had for some reason been censored by YouTube even though they have broken YouTube rules multiple times which would have lead permanent ban for your normal user

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Im not sure I understand what you saying? Are you saying you angry and  concerned with YT banning RT but you not angry and concerned with basically all media in  Russia being state controlled and not telling the Russian people the truth about the invasion or showing the thousands of Russian citizens being arrested in anti-war protests?

So all you see from the likes of RT is an utterly biased and selective version of the reality of  Putins War both in Ukraine and the streets of cities like Moscow and St Pietersburg. Why would you want to exposure anyone to that false narrative ?

Besides my grammar being bad and should read I doubt (rather than do not doubt)... not angry. Just rolling my eyes. What happened to let people decide for themselves? You have a monopoly on the truth? Then you're turning into the wolf you decry. YT is YT. It's a business. I think we established a long time ago, businesses have no ethics. If it's profitable, anything goes. Not that I wouldn't ban it if I were YT, but I would do for different reasons (ethics rather than profit). Or as @Elerond pointed out, for being in breach of their TOS.

[Mamoulian War]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

She is entitled to her opinion but its definitely not the truth. The invasion of Afghanistan was not about access to the resources because what resources Afghanistan has are largely in tribal controlled areas or areas that arent safe to mine in for international companies and to this day most of resources are inaccessible 

The invasion of Afghanistan was about 9/11 and the irrefutable fact that AQ attacked the US and the reality that the Taliban were giving refuge to Bin Laden. It was  a perfectly  legitimate invasion unless someone thinks the US and its allies should have done nothing about 9/11?

Its also not about the race card, the Taliban took over Afghanistan and said they dont want the US or a Western presence in Afghanistan. So now the Taliban run the country why are we blaming the US for the state of the country and the anti-Western rhetoric from the Taliban ?

 

It would be justified, if US would invade Saudi Arabia, as Bin Laden was heavily funded by their government

[Mamoulian War]

3 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

This looks like a balls of steel suicide like engagement... 

 

The most interesting thing is, that it happened on the same road as this, 3.6 km to the north.

On 3/10/2022 at 4:06 PM, Darkpriest said:

I wonder if this was anywhere verified as real. 

 

Location of the incidents

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/50.6151824,30.8615284/50.5858148,30.8387238/@50.6000449,30.8322509,5846m/am=t/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!4m1!3e0!5m1!1e4

Edited March 12, 2022 by Mamoulian War

[Mamoulian War]

Unfortunately it looks like the second tank just before it was destroyed killed the UA soldier, which hit him

[Darkpriest]

41 minutes ago, Mamoulian War said:

Unfortunately it looks like the second tank just before it was destroyed killed the UA soldier, which hit him

I think that the casualties on UA are significant, even if they have some successes here and there. I mean, the position they are in, being outgunned and out teched is a losing position. Their specials have remarkable achievements, but engagements such as this show that there are casualties. One missed rocket and they got returned on by a frigging tank, not to mention the BTRs and dismounted infantry. 

They have to rely on a hit and run, and those have to be executed really well. 

I wonder what will happen once the 'foreign' fighters will start dying or Russians will capture some. 

[Mamoulian War]

I know, especially the guy with NLAW should have been at least 1km away from the target

[Guard Dog]

Bennett advises Zelensky to surrender to Russia, Zelensky refuses

Israel seems to think they are some kind of mediator. My reply would be "Did you surrender when you were invaded and surrounded by enemies? F--k you."

[Guard Dog]

2 minutes ago, Mamoulian War said:

I know, especially the guy with NLAW should have been at least 1km away from the target

I guarantee you if I'd fired that rocket I'd be 1 km away as fast as I could run 1 km after firing that rocket!

[Mamoulian War]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

I guarantee you if I'd fired that rocket I'd be 1 km away as fast as I could run 1 km after firing that rocket!

Tanks are pretty slow to outrun it, aren't they? And NLAW should have some kind of auto targeting system. Correct me if I am wrong.

[213374U]

15 hours ago, Elerond said:

Free speech is about government preventing people expressing their opinions, which includes not publishing messages from the government. So in this case freedom of speech is on side of YT and against RT, which is government owned media and government that owns it prevents people expressing their opinions in multitude of ways. 

No. That may be some edge interpretation of the American 1st Amendment, but not really what free speech is about. Free speech is a guiding principle that applies to everyone who is committed to an open society. You don't have a protected right while on that platform, but that doesn't immediately invalidate the principle itself. It is on the private entity running the platform to decide whether they want to uphold that principle and assume the costs and consequences.

I fully support YouTube's right to nuke RT, but I find the decision unfortunate, the execution ham-fisted, and the reasoning given laughable. They have chosen to remove the entire RT channel, but not everything in there was Russian gov't propaganda. Unless you somehow figure that documentaries about the life in deep Siberia of some 30-something guy that looks like a teenager is pro-war Kremlin tripe. All the while claiming to do so under the "violent content" protection guidelines.

What I don't support is ****ing Ursula von der Leyen deciding for some 450 million people what they can and cannot watch in the privacy of their homes. That is censorship, but after what we've been seeing lately, I'm not at all surprised that seldom anyone seems to have a problem with this.

[kanisatha]

10 hours ago, Gorth said:

YouTube is a private company and as such has a lot of say over what goes on their platform and what not.

I would completely agree with you on this except for one very important detail: YT is a monopoly. So people cannot take their voices elsewhere when YT censors them. Private entities controling content on their platforms is their right, but only so long as they're not the only game in town. It's why I am very strongly in the camp of needing to break up the tech monopolies.

[Gorth]

37 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

I would completely agree with you on this except for one very important detail: YT is a monopoly. So people cannot take their voices elsewhere when YT censors them. Private entities controling content on their platforms is their right, but only so long as they're not the only game in town. It's why I am very strongly in the camp of needing to break up the tech monopolies.

No disagreement there...

[Malcador]

3 hours ago, Mamoulian War said:

I know, especially the guy with NLAW should have been at least 1km away from the target

1km should be at most, not least, given that's the maximum range of the weapon in theory.

[Mamoulian War]

 

[Mamoulian War]

 

[Guard Dog]

3 hours ago, Mamoulian War said:

Tanks are pretty slow to outrun it, aren't they? And NLAW should have some kind of auto targeting system. Correct me if I am wrong.

No idea I'm afraid. The LAW & AT-4 were manually sighted. The TOW was guided. None are currently in use as far as I know. Out running a tank is not hard. Out running .30 caliber small arms fire or 105mm tank sabot is much, much harder. 

Edit: Of course if the tank is firing HE or WP don't even both running. You'll just die tired. 

Edited March 12, 2022 by Guard Dog

[bugarup]

Very interesting article on Russia and that festering pustule of lies and delusions that is ruling it:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/stephen-kotkin-putin-russia-ukraine-stalin

[pmp10]

40 minutes ago, Mamoulian War said:

 

I wouldn't put too much credence to it.
There are a lot of demonizing rumors about Russian forces going around right now.
'Not one step back' brigades, mobile crematoria, finishing off own wounded, mining corpses and so on.
Usually spread by the same people who said Putin fired multiple subordinates (presumably Darth Vader style), yet we still see them showing up in official news footage.