It is interesting seeing some people explaining away Russian attack on a mall because they've seen some blurry photos of trucks under a building. Some people defer instantly to 'rules of war', as if they were infallible and ordained from above when it seems so many questions
could be asked before that point is reached. E.g are the photos real? Why weren't the trucks attacked when they were in the open if they were filmed in the open? How did they know if they were in the building at the time of the attack at night? If they did know where the
vehicles were why did they not wait till they emerged? When, in urban conflict, does a building become dual use. What if it's a high rise in the way of incoming shells protecting a tank that's in the open street? Wasn't it possible to destroy the trucks in a different way? I
guess the point I am trying to make is how people will easily indulge an aggressor, & resort quickly to legitimize an argument despite the absurd nature of circumstances, in which a city is being shelled by an invading force. For me Russian claims are no more credible then when
Israel do the same in Gaza, using overwhelming force and simply explaining it away saying there were Hamas assets there (even if there are, it doesn't morally justify such an attack).
the attack
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
