A Russian war reporter was killed and three were wounded in Ukraine on Saturday in what the defence ministry said was a Ukrainian attack using cluster munitions, prompting outrage from Moscow.
If they are fabricating propaganda, why would they go to the front line? Why risk their life when, according to you, they’re just going to make everything up and say what they want anyway? Seems like the easier, safer, and more effective propaganda would simply not involve going to the front line and instead sitting in a news room, with some CGI if they’re feeling fancy, or using old footage if they’re not, and propagating that?
Moreover, just because you don’t like what a journalist is reporting, you can’t condone killing journalists.
Are you also saying it’d be ok to kill Russian medics, since after all, they’re just saving the lives of “Russian war criminals”? Should we suddenly open up the rules of war to allow killing medics on the side we’re fighting? The logic you’re using to defend the killing of journalists, when applied evenly, would say yes, we should allow killing of enemy medics.
Fortunately though, the Geneva Convention disagrees with your faulty logic and recognizes that non-combat roles including medics and journalists can not be targeted and indeed care should be taken to not inadvertently kill them.
Do you honestly think western reporting on the war is honest?
Of all the gigs that journalists do, reporting on “war” is the toughest. Not because of the dangers – though these must not to be underestimated. But when reporting “war”, journalists face off against the world’s most powerful vested interests and compete with society’s deepest cultural mythologies.
At its best, the Fourth Estate uncovered the My Lai massacre, the Abu Ghraib scandal and the incestuous relations in the Bush era of retired military officers, the US Defence Department and the “defence” industry.
In this incarnation, the Fourth Estate frightened even Napoleon. In his words:
“Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.”
But the military’s “reality” is powerful, insidious and covert. It is seductive.
And I, for one, am not speaking for Russia when I criticise peoples’ happiness over the fact that a journalist has been killed in a war zone, just because they were Russian.
So you ignore the actual argument I made, how your logic, evenly applied, would apply to killing medics as well. And you ignore the fact that your opinion here is against the Geneva Convention. You conveniently ignore the part where you don’t have to target them to have killing them be a problem; killing them is the problem. And your only retort is whataboutism: “yeah but Russia does bad”.
Take a look back at my comment. Apply the reasoning, and tell me: do you think we should allow killing enemy medics? If not, explain to me your contradictory stance.
No. You are building a massive strawman. I never even said a word about medics.
I guess you don’t understand how this works. I’m not building a strawman, as I’m literally describing the Geneva Convention’s justification for why your opinion is nonsensical to hold. I’m simply asking you to extend your “logic” to an identical situation that, in my opinion, is more enlightening as to why your argument is faulty. They are both non-combat roles, and the justification for protecting them in a war setting is identical.
You conveniently ignore everything Russia has done. Tell me, is Russia following Geneva conventions and Nuremberg principles?
I see that you don’t actually care to have an honest discussion. I haven’t mentioned anything Russia has done; I haven’t justified anything Russia has done. You think me pointing out that Ukraine has done something wrong, and that your defense of that is bad, is somehow equivalent to defending Russia.
It seems, unless you want to try to actually respond to the points I’ve raised, that you’re content in your disagreement with the Geneva Convention. As such, your faked concern about Russia’s supposed violation of the Geneva Convention is just that: faked.
Why would they condemn Russia when the article that started this discussion identifies a potential war crime committed by Ukraine and facilitated by NATO. There’s lots to criticise Russia for but this ain’t it.
If they are fabricating propaganda, why would they go to the front line? Why risk their life when, according to you, they’re just going to make everything up and say what they want anyway? Seems like the easier, safer, and more effective propaganda would simply not involve going to the front line and instead sitting in a news room, with some CGI if they’re feeling fancy, or using old footage if they’re not, and propagating that?
Moreover, just because you don’t like what a journalist is reporting, you can’t condone killing journalists.
Are you also saying it’d be ok to kill Russian medics, since after all, they’re just saving the lives of “Russian war criminals”? Should we suddenly open up the rules of war to allow killing medics on the side we’re fighting? The logic you’re using to defend the killing of journalists, when applied evenly, would say yes, we should allow killing of enemy medics.
Fortunately though, the Geneva Convention disagrees with your faulty logic and recognizes that non-combat roles including medics and journalists can not be targeted and indeed care should be taken to not inadvertently kill them.
It makes their propaganda look legitimate. Do you honestly think Russian reporting on the war is honest.
No one is talking about targeting journalists. But it’s rich Russia suddenly has scruples considering their own war crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
Do you honestly think western reporting on the war is honest?
From https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/embedded-journalism-and-msm-war-propaganda,7045
And I, for one, am not speaking for Russia when I criticise peoples’ happiness over the fact that a journalist has been killed in a war zone, just because they were Russian.
It is 100 times more honest than Russia’s. You are clearly a Putin apologist.
I’m unsure if this is deliberate misinterpretation or an unfortunate misunderstanding. Still, congratulations for completely missing my point.
So you ignore the actual argument I made, how your logic, evenly applied, would apply to killing medics as well. And you ignore the fact that your opinion here is against the Geneva Convention. You conveniently ignore the part where you don’t have to target them to have killing them be a problem; killing them is the problem. And your only retort is whataboutism: “yeah but Russia does bad”.
Take a look back at my comment. Apply the reasoning, and tell me: do you think we should allow killing enemy medics? If not, explain to me your contradictory stance.
No. You are building a massive strawman. I never even said a word about medics.
You conveniently ignore everything Russia has done. Tell me, is Russia following Geneva conventions and Nuremberg principles?
I guess you don’t understand how this works. I’m not building a strawman, as I’m literally describing the Geneva Convention’s justification for why your opinion is nonsensical to hold. I’m simply asking you to extend your “logic” to an identical situation that, in my opinion, is more enlightening as to why your argument is faulty. They are both non-combat roles, and the justification for protecting them in a war setting is identical.
I see that you don’t actually care to have an honest discussion. I haven’t mentioned anything Russia has done; I haven’t justified anything Russia has done. You think me pointing out that Ukraine has done something wrong, and that your defense of that is bad, is somehow equivalent to defending Russia.
It seems, unless you want to try to actually respond to the points I’ve raised, that you’re content in your disagreement with the Geneva Convention. As such, your faked concern about Russia’s supposed violation of the Geneva Convention is just that: faked.
My opinion is that Russian journalists are spreading propaganda. That has nothing to do with the Geneva Convention
And you have actively avoided condemning Russia, which speaks volumes.
Why would they condemn Russia when the article that started this discussion identifies a potential war crime committed by Ukraine and facilitated by NATO. There’s lots to criticise Russia for but this ain’t it.