'Appalling' videos alleged to show Russian soldiers castrating a Ukrainian soldier

originally posted by: turretless
My comment is this:
Russia is doing everything possible to comply with the Geneva Convention and other humanitarian laws, and actively cooperates with international humanitarian organizations.

Ah, satire then?

The body of evidence that is being built shows Russia to be barbaric in its conduct of the invasion of Ukraine. Furthermore, the Russians are treating the ICRC (Red Cross) with contempt, even though they were referenced in your quote as if Russia were "collaborating in partnership and joy" with them.

ICRC and the alleged atrocities against POWs in Olenivka

As of yet, we have not been granted access to the PoWs affected by the attack nor do we have security guarantees to carry out this visit. Our offer to donate supplies remains unanswered.

a reply to: paraphi

Many international organizations are under the control of the West and are tools to ensure its interests.

I wouldn't be surprised if the ICRC passed data to Ukraine for strikes on the detention center in Olenevka.

Such a precedent has already been - Former members of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine detained in Donetsk and Lugansk - mid.ru...

originally posted by: Grimpachi


Were you just trying to be sarcastic when claiming the bombed-out building was an incendiary and then claiming it that no guards were harmed?

Because it is pretty obvious that huge explosion happened there and it wasn't any incendiary. There were also reports right after of guards being wounded.

I have seen braindead pro-Ukraine twitter mobs claiming it was an incendiary grenade and no one but the prisoners were harmed so seeing you making almost the same statement I figured you fell in line with them.

So was it an explosion from above downward or from the inside out? All I said was from a few sources it appears to be more incendiary based, also your so called source that some soldiers were injured is from some stupid tweet, but then it supports you so it must be 100% factual..lol give me a break.

The story that the soldiers were talking about war crimes to the Russians and so Ukraine wiped them is so over the top that only the Russians would make up such crap and only you and like 2 others here would believe it.

a reply to: Xtrozero

So was it an explosion from above downward or from the inside out? All I said was from a few sources it appears to be more incendiary based, also your so called source that some soldiers were injured is from some stupid tweet, but then it supports you so it must be 100% factual..lol give me a break.

It was an explosion. That much I know because I know what the aftermath of an explosion looks like.

Are you saying that you never even looked at the available evidence or are you saying you don't know what the aftermath of an incendiary looks like?

Your few sources which you have not shared are obviously full of #. Incendiaries don't blow roofs off or walls out creating shrapnel damage. Nor do they create a blast that twists debris around itself.

I didn't post anything from a tweet. I posted from telegram. The fact remains there were reports of guards being harmed right after it happened from sources in the area. Are your sources stating that no guards were injured the same that either blatantly lied or incompetently claimed it was an incendiary?

The story that the soldiers were talking about war crimes to the Russians and so Ukraine wiped them is so over the top that only the Russians would make up such crap and only you and like 2 others here would believe it.

They were talking about war crimes which is an undeniable fact. Several videos were released to the public of them doing so before UA attacked.

However, I never made any claim that was why UA killed them. Are you trying to build a strawman?

A person that says it appears to be incendiaries is obviously not qualified to claim others are believing crap.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

A person that says it appears to be incendiaries is obviously not qualified to claim others are believing crap.

Well then neither are you. You are an armchair warrior and as I said, you believe everything that supports your narrative.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Wow, I didn't expect a Peewee Herman comeback from you.

Does that mean you still believe it was an incendiary?

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Wow, I didn't expect a Peewee Herman comeback from you.

Does that mean you still believe it was an incendiary?

I thought you were not replying to me anymore as my original post wasn't to you, but you post some telegraph and drop the mic like you made some profound statement, and it really means nothing even though you think otherwise.

We can go with the separatist rather over the top statement, like pretty much what Russia has been doing for about 80 years or we can say that makes about as much common sense as US bio weapon labs all over Ukraine.

You decide...

a reply to: Xtrozero

I thought you were not replying to me anymore as my original post wasn't to you

lol

You mean after you dropped a comment to me under @Grimpachi so I woulsdn't be notified?

I had replied back in the same way for S&G after seeing it.

I notice you didn't answer if you still think it was an incendiary.

I thought it was funny that you would make a statement such as " a few sources it appears to be more incendiary based."

Those "few sources" of yours are getting all of their info from Russian DPR releases.

Really sad to see an old ATS memeber ignore the real source info and opt for what is likely an MSM spin on the source info.

a reply to: turretless

You have to make a decision here.

On the one hand, you take as gospel an update from Russia which says that they are being humanitarian and working with the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and blah, blah, blah. This article (you say) proves Russia is treating civilians and POWs lovingly, because clearly Russian actions are being scrutinised by the ICRC.

On the other hand, you say that ICRC is a Western puppet and thus anything they do is false and wrong. The ICRC say the Russians are not allowing them to "do their job", presumably because they will uncover Russian abuse and war crimes et al.

Which is it? You are tied up in a knot, and contradicting yourself at every turn.

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: turretless

You have to make a decision here.

On the one hand, you take as gospel an update from Russia which says that they are being humanitarian and working with the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and blah, blah, blah. This article (you say) proves Russia is treating civilians and POWs lovingly, because clearly Russian actions are being scrutinised by the ICRC.

On the other hand, you say that ICRC is a Western puppet and thus anything they do is false and wrong. The ICRC say the Russians are not allowing them to "do their job", presumably because they will uncover Russian abuse and war crimes et al.

Which is it? You are tied up in a knot, and contradicting yourself at every turn.

You must learn to understand what I am writing to you.

To help you in this matter, I note here some of your mistakes.

1) I do not "take as gospel an update from Russia"

2) I didn't claim that "This article (you say) proves Russia is treating civilians and POWs lovingly"

3) I didn't claim that "anything they (ICRC) do is false and wrong"


I do not see any contradiction in the fact that although the ICRC is not perfect, nevertheless Russia works with them.

The simple fact is that there are no other international organizations that are better than this one.

originally posted by: turretless
You must learn to understand what I am writing to you.

I fully understand what you are writing, and feel that you contradict your position repeatedly.

Russian propaganda = Good and believable.
Anyone who challenges that narrative = Western puppet.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: turretless
You must learn to understand what I am writing to you.

I fully understand what you are writing, and feel that you contradict your position repeatedly.

Russian propaganda = Good and believable.
Anyone who challenges that narrative = Western puppet.

Today I have already given one of the examples of the deceitfulness of Western propaganda - www.abovetopsecret.com...

In addition, I constantly analyze anti-Russian arguments and they rarely turn out to be well-founded.

originally posted by: turretless
Today I have already given one of the examples of the deceitfulness of Western propaganda

Yes, and well done. Have to say that I did not understand your angle.

The Ukrainians have destroyed a number of Russian Raptor-class patrol boats, and there's video evidence of that fact. There are others which remain un-sunk.

Are you saying that because there are some of these patrol boats still around, then Ukraine cannot have sunk any? Thus, Western media are lying when they say some have been sunk?

By your logic, it's "I saw a Russian T72 drive past, so that's evidence that Ukraine has not destroyed any, so any videos of destroyed Russian tanks are made up, and it's all untrue"?

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: turretless
Today I have already given one of the examples of the deceitfulness of Western propaganda

Yes, and well done. Have to say that I did not understand your angle.

The Ukrainians have destroyed a number of Russian Raptor-class patrol boats, and there's video evidence of that fact. There are others which remain un-sunk.

Are you saying that because there are some of these patrol boats still around, then Ukraine cannot have sunk any? Thus, Western media are lying when they say some have been sunk?

By your logic, it's "I saw a Russian T72 drive past, so that's evidence that Ukraine has not destroyed any, so any videos of destroyed Russian tanks are made up, and it's all untrue"?

If you decide to play the fool in front of me, then this is your last post to which I answer.

There, in all articles, a specific vessel is indicated as "Putin's parade boat".

Because my logic, as usual, is not what you attribute to me.

My logic is that if the Western media wrote that Putin's parade boat was sunk, but it is present at the July parade of this year, then this means that the Western media are lying.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

lol

You mean after you dropped a comment to me under @Grimpachi so I woulsdn't be notified?

My post was to RT so no clue to what you mean here.

I notice you didn't answer if you still think it was an incendiary.

Jesus, you don't stopped do you even when you are wrong. Here is a picture of your so called HIMAR attack. This is from a pro Russian news source RT



You tell me, does it look like it been hit by a high explosive missile?

Here is another pro Russian site with an inside picture. This is not some big missile explosion, it looks like the fire started inside as the outer walls are all fine.



But here we are with RT and you trying to deflect the OP's post. But but but look what Kiev did....lol Then when we look at it is just you normal over the top Russian BS they do all the time.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Oh my, you found a couple of pictures that were released and that is supposed to be your evidence that it was an incendiary.

t.me...

t.me...

t.me...


t.me...

I have never seen a fire blow a person's foot off before.

Nor have I seen a fire blow half a roof off throwing fragmentation through other parts, Never seen one blow out a wall either. That is one hell of a backdraft.

But here we are with RT and you trying to deflect the OP's post

You are the one who brought up the prison that was attacked. You are just mad I called out your BS.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

You are the one who brought up the prison that was attacked. You are just mad I called out your BS.

Actually I didn't....

I was replying to RT as he was the one who tried to pull his Whataboutism to try and deflect the OP's point. All I did was suggest it was not a high explosive as some have analyzed the building that I posted. That was it, AND you then rode in on your high horse attacking me in some weird way of a WTF.

I showed you the building and said you decide, but I think we both can agree the building was not blown up and was burned. If you can't see that, look at the pictures again that I already said came from one of your pro-Russian sites.

a reply to: Xtrozero

but I think we both can agree the building was not blown up and was burned.

No, it is pretty obvious that an explosion went off in there and it was pretty big.

There is no way it was an incendiary. Incidiarrys don't blow off limbs, blow out walls, blow off roofs or throw fragmentation.

If you can't see that, look at the pictures again that I already said came from one of your pro-Russian sites.

Those pictures look to be screenshots from the video of the site. Videos that I posted links to which you seem to be ignoring or maybe you just don't know what you are looking at.

Russia also called for the UN and red cross investigators to come in and look at the site. Something I doubt they would do if it was an incendiary but because some pro Ukraine propaganda network put it in your head that it was an incendiary you seem to have abandoned all logic.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Russia also called for the UN and red cross investigators to come in and look at the site. Something I doubt they would do if it was an incendiary but because some pro Ukraine propaganda network put it in your head that it was an incendiary you seem to have abandoned all logic.

And here we are with your own version of whataboutism as was my original post to RT was about. The outer walls look fine with smoke stains from fire coming from the inside. Are you going to keep going on with this, or are going to talk about what the OP started?

If you decide to do that, do it with someone else as you now bore me with your never ending loops of BS.

a reply to: Xtrozero

And here we are with your own version of whataboutism as was my original post to RT was about.

There is no version. There is no whataboutism. There is the evidence and you talking about how some of your sources led you to believe it was an inciniary.

Then there is you ignoring the evidence because it doesn't fit your narrative.

The outer walls look fine with smoke stains from fire coming from the inside.

Yet you ignore the evidence from the inside. No one is saying there wasn't a fire in there. The crispy bodies are proof enough. You ignore the wall and roof that was blasted off. You ignore that body parts were blasted off.

But there are smoke stains around the windows you say while also ignoring the bars on those windows that were warped out by the blast.

Are you going to keep going on with this, or are going to talk about what the OP started?

If you are not willing to look and talk about the evidence then don't. No one is forcing you to reply.

If you decide to do that, do it with someone else as you now bore me with your never ending loops of BS.

Pot meet Kettle.

I hope you enjoy soaking in the MSM narrative.