▲ 136 ▼ Zelensky Warns ‘Safe Days’ Are Over for Civilian Aircraft in Russian Airspace as He Vows To Escalate Drone Attacks (news.antiwar.com) submitted 2 months ago by NightOwl@lemmy.ca to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml 48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] muhyb@programming.dev 41 points 2 months ago (21 children) There is no justification for attacking on civilians. permalink fedilink source hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] onoki@reddthat.com 23 points 2 months ago (5 children) In the linked article no one suggests attacks on civilians. Rather it reads as a way to avoid unnecessary casulties. What a clickbait headline. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 months ago Sure but that's a threat and a weak cover. The logistics of covering Russian airspace with so many drones that a civilian aircraft would just happen into one is ridiculous. This is an incredibly common tactic. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 60 points 2 months ago* (3 children) Yeah this is what he actually said... "Today, we want to warn every airline that uses Russian airspace, every insurer, and everyone who still uses Russia’s key airports: Russian airspace is becoming completely unsafe." "Ukraine does not threaten civilian aviation as such – not a single civilian aircraft. There will simply be drones in Russia’s skies on a scale that has to be taken into account" "We in Ukraine do not want innocent lives to be lost. That is why we are warning our partners: the safe days in Russia’s skies are over. It is important that this is heard by the ambassadors of countries represented here in Ukraine, as well as by ambassadors working in Moscow." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 months ago (1 child) “Ukraine does not threaten civilian aviation as such – not a single civilian aircraft. There will simply be drones in Russia’s skies on a scale that has to be taken into account” bro, you gotta learn to read imperialese. this is imperial speak to say we're going to kill civilians. didn't you learn form the "enhanced interrogation" scandal from the gringo fascist empire? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip -15 points 2 months ago* It’s actually closer to Irans playbook, making the Strait unnavigable. Notice that he explicitly called out insurers in the speech. He wants to exercise political control over the Russian airspace and he’s using drones to do it. “Too risky to travel” means no travel. That’s not killing civilians. It should also be completely fair to say, “hey… this is an active war zone. You probably shouldn’t fly here.” At a certain point, the risk is something that the airliner chose to accept. It’s not that Ukraine would target them. It’s that you’re in a fucking war zone, know the risks. Be glad you even got a warning for what should be common sense. permalink fedilink source parent [–] narr1@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago We in Ukraine do not want innocent lives to be lost. Well that's just an outright and blatant lie. permalink fedilink source parent [+] danielfm123@lemmy.zip -7 points 2 months ago (14 children) Russia does... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 months ago (6 children) That’s not justification for killing more civilians that’s psychotic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works -11 points 2 months ago (5 children) If airlines care about not losing planes and people they will stop flying over Russia so it would have the ideal result of shutting down flights there. Ethically it's a bit fucked but it's likely an effective way to apply more pressure. And it's not like Russia can't just stop all of this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 months ago (1 child) I need you to understand the line you are choosing to cross here. You are now openly, in front of everybody, shrugging and vaguely justifying open mass terror against civilians. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago No you're right, I think I was speaking partly out of exhaustion from this whole mess, I'd rather they just stopped. permalink fedilink source parent [+] LemsGhost@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 months ago (1 child) I was talking more about them being concerned about possibly losing their property and thus profits, not that they had any moral compass. I'm not sure what the US has to do with it though, these companies are owned by people from all sorts of countries. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] muhyb@programming.dev -3 points 2 months ago (6 children) Well, that includes Russians. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago (5 children) Yes it does. It includes both Russian civilians and Ukrainian civilians permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] muhyb@programming.dev 3 points 2 months ago (4 children) No idea why I've been downvoted. Deliberately killing any civilians is a war crime. End of point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago* (3 children) Because your original comment says “well Russia does it …” kindof seems like you’re implying an “eye for an eye” situation is just here. If your comment was focusing on Russian civilian death, too, it doesn’t really seem like it, kinda more like you're trying to act like Russia kills way more Ukrainian civilians and that makes it ok that Ukraine can kill Russian civilians, because “well Russia does it too …” If that wasn’t your intention then I apologize but you must see how it comes off that way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] muhyb@programming.dev 7 points 2 months ago (2 children) I guess I've been misundestood. English does that to me time to time. What I meant is, there is no justification for attacking on civilians no matter which side you are on, that includes Russian civilians. Definitely didn't want to mean eye for an eye. That's terrible. Thanks for the heads up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (1 child) Well hey, your English has me convinced! I’d much rather give tips on English than explain why killing civilians, no matter who, is bad 😅 rock on friend ! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] muhyb@programming.dev 5 points 2 months ago Of course, having arguments over this shouldn't happen in the first place but sadly it happens, so I understand and appreciate your concern. Cheers! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] onoki@reddthat.com 23 points 2 months ago (5 children) In the linked article no one suggests attacks on civilians. Rather it reads as a way to avoid unnecessary casulties. What a clickbait headline. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 months ago Sure but that's a threat and a weak cover. The logistics of covering Russian airspace with so many drones that a civilian aircraft would just happen into one is ridiculous. This is an incredibly common tactic. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 60 points 2 months ago* (3 children) Yeah this is what he actually said... "Today, we want to warn every airline that uses Russian airspace, every insurer, and everyone who still uses Russia’s key airports: Russian airspace is becoming completely unsafe." "Ukraine does not threaten civilian aviation as such – not a single civilian aircraft. There will simply be drones in Russia’s skies on a scale that has to be taken into account" "We in Ukraine do not want innocent lives to be lost. That is why we are warning our partners: the safe days in Russia’s skies are over. It is important that this is heard by the ambassadors of countries represented here in Ukraine, as well as by ambassadors working in Moscow." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 months ago (1 child) “Ukraine does not threaten civilian aviation as such – not a single civilian aircraft. There will simply be drones in Russia’s skies on a scale that has to be taken into account” bro, you gotta learn to read imperialese. this is imperial speak to say we're going to kill civilians. didn't you learn form the "enhanced interrogation" scandal from the gringo fascist empire? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip -15 points 2 months ago* It’s actually closer to Irans playbook, making the Strait unnavigable. Notice that he explicitly called out insurers in the speech. He wants to exercise political control over the Russian airspace and he’s using drones to do it. “Too risky to travel” means no travel. That’s not killing civilians. It should also be completely fair to say, “hey… this is an active war zone. You probably shouldn’t fly here.” At a certain point, the risk is something that the airliner chose to accept. It’s not that Ukraine would target them. It’s that you’re in a fucking war zone, know the risks. Be glad you even got a warning for what should be common sense. permalink fedilink source parent [–] narr1@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago We in Ukraine do not want innocent lives to be lost. Well that's just an outright and blatant lie. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 months ago Sure but that's a threat and a weak cover. The logistics of covering Russian airspace with so many drones that a civilian aircraft would just happen into one is ridiculous. This is an incredibly common tactic. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 60 points 2 months ago* (3 children) Yeah this is what he actually said... "Today, we want to warn every airline that uses Russian airspace, every insurer, and everyone who still uses Russia’s key airports: Russian airspace is becoming completely unsafe." "Ukraine does not threaten civilian aviation as such – not a single civilian aircraft. There will simply be drones in Russia’s skies on a scale that has to be taken into account" "We in Ukraine do not want innocent lives to be lost. That is why we are warning our partners: the safe days in Russia’s skies are over. It is important that this is heard by the ambassadors of countries represented here in Ukraine, as well as by ambassadors working in Moscow." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 months ago (1 child) “Ukraine does not threaten civilian aviation as such – not a single civilian aircraft. There will simply be drones in Russia’s skies on a scale that has to be taken into account” bro, you gotta learn to read imperialese. this is imperial speak to say we're going to kill civilians. didn't you learn form the "enhanced interrogation" scandal from the gringo fascist empire? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip -15 points 2 months ago* It’s actually closer to Irans playbook, making the Strait unnavigable. Notice that he explicitly called out insurers in the speech. He wants to exercise political control over the Russian airspace and he’s using drones to do it. “Too risky to travel” means no travel. That’s not killing civilians. It should also be completely fair to say, “hey… this is an active war zone. You probably shouldn’t fly here.” At a certain point, the risk is something that the airliner chose to accept. It’s not that Ukraine would target them. It’s that you’re in a fucking war zone, know the risks. Be glad you even got a warning for what should be common sense. permalink fedilink source parent [–] narr1@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago We in Ukraine do not want innocent lives to be lost. Well that's just an outright and blatant lie. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 months ago (1 child) “Ukraine does not threaten civilian aviation as such – not a single civilian aircraft. There will simply be drones in Russia’s skies on a scale that has to be taken into account” bro, you gotta learn to read imperialese. this is imperial speak to say we're going to kill civilians. didn't you learn form the "enhanced interrogation" scandal from the gringo fascist empire? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip -15 points 2 months ago* It’s actually closer to Irans playbook, making the Strait unnavigable. Notice that he explicitly called out insurers in the speech. He wants to exercise political control over the Russian airspace and he’s using drones to do it. “Too risky to travel” means no travel. That’s not killing civilians. It should also be completely fair to say, “hey… this is an active war zone. You probably shouldn’t fly here.” At a certain point, the risk is something that the airliner chose to accept. It’s not that Ukraine would target them. It’s that you’re in a fucking war zone, know the risks. Be glad you even got a warning for what should be common sense. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip -15 points 2 months ago* It’s actually closer to Irans playbook, making the Strait unnavigable. Notice that he explicitly called out insurers in the speech. He wants to exercise political control over the Russian airspace and he’s using drones to do it. “Too risky to travel” means no travel. That’s not killing civilians. It should also be completely fair to say, “hey… this is an active war zone. You probably shouldn’t fly here.” At a certain point, the risk is something that the airliner chose to accept. It’s not that Ukraine would target them. It’s that you’re in a fucking war zone, know the risks. Be glad you even got a warning for what should be common sense. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] narr1@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago We in Ukraine do not want innocent lives to be lost. Well that's just an outright and blatant lie. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] danielfm123@lemmy.zip -7 points 2 months ago (14 children) Russia does... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 months ago (6 children) That’s not justification for killing more civilians that’s psychotic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works -11 points 2 months ago (5 children) If airlines care about not losing planes and people they will stop flying over Russia so it would have the ideal result of shutting down flights there. Ethically it's a bit fucked but it's likely an effective way to apply more pressure. And it's not like Russia can't just stop all of this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 months ago (1 child) I need you to understand the line you are choosing to cross here. You are now openly, in front of everybody, shrugging and vaguely justifying open mass terror against civilians. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago No you're right, I think I was speaking partly out of exhaustion from this whole mess, I'd rather they just stopped. permalink fedilink source parent [+] LemsGhost@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 months ago (1 child) I was talking more about them being concerned about possibly losing their property and thus profits, not that they had any moral compass. I'm not sure what the US has to do with it though, these companies are owned by people from all sorts of countries. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] muhyb@programming.dev -3 points 2 months ago (6 children) Well, that includes Russians. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago (5 children) Yes it does. It includes both Russian civilians and Ukrainian civilians permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] muhyb@programming.dev 3 points 2 months ago (4 children) No idea why I've been downvoted. Deliberately killing any civilians is a war crime. End of point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago* (3 children) Because your original comment says “well Russia does it …” kindof seems like you’re implying an “eye for an eye” situation is just here. If your comment was focusing on Russian civilian death, too, it doesn’t really seem like it, kinda more like you're trying to act like Russia kills way more Ukrainian civilians and that makes it ok that Ukraine can kill Russian civilians, because “well Russia does it too …” If that wasn’t your intention then I apologize but you must see how it comes off that way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] muhyb@programming.dev 7 points 2 months ago (2 children) I guess I've been misundestood. English does that to me time to time. What I meant is, there is no justification for attacking on civilians no matter which side you are on, that includes Russian civilians. Definitely didn't want to mean eye for an eye. That's terrible. Thanks for the heads up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (1 child) Well hey, your English has me convinced! I’d much rather give tips on English than explain why killing civilians, no matter who, is bad 😅 rock on friend ! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] muhyb@programming.dev 5 points 2 months ago Of course, having arguments over this shouldn't happen in the first place but sadly it happens, so I understand and appreciate your concern. Cheers! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 months ago (6 children) That’s not justification for killing more civilians that’s psychotic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works -11 points 2 months ago (5 children) If airlines care about not losing planes and people they will stop flying over Russia so it would have the ideal result of shutting down flights there. Ethically it's a bit fucked but it's likely an effective way to apply more pressure. And it's not like Russia can't just stop all of this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 months ago (1 child) I need you to understand the line you are choosing to cross here. You are now openly, in front of everybody, shrugging and vaguely justifying open mass terror against civilians. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago No you're right, I think I was speaking partly out of exhaustion from this whole mess, I'd rather they just stopped. permalink fedilink source parent [+] LemsGhost@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 months ago (1 child) I was talking more about them being concerned about possibly losing their property and thus profits, not that they had any moral compass. I'm not sure what the US has to do with it though, these companies are owned by people from all sorts of countries. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[+] snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works -11 points 2 months ago (5 children) If airlines care about not losing planes and people they will stop flying over Russia so it would have the ideal result of shutting down flights there. Ethically it's a bit fucked but it's likely an effective way to apply more pressure. And it's not like Russia can't just stop all of this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 months ago (1 child) I need you to understand the line you are choosing to cross here. You are now openly, in front of everybody, shrugging and vaguely justifying open mass terror against civilians. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago No you're right, I think I was speaking partly out of exhaustion from this whole mess, I'd rather they just stopped. permalink fedilink source parent [+] LemsGhost@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 months ago (1 child) I was talking more about them being concerned about possibly losing their property and thus profits, not that they had any moral compass. I'm not sure what the US has to do with it though, these companies are owned by people from all sorts of countries. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 months ago (1 child) I need you to understand the line you are choosing to cross here. You are now openly, in front of everybody, shrugging and vaguely justifying open mass terror against civilians. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago No you're right, I think I was speaking partly out of exhaustion from this whole mess, I'd rather they just stopped. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago No you're right, I think I was speaking partly out of exhaustion from this whole mess, I'd rather they just stopped. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] LemsGhost@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 months ago (1 child) I was talking more about them being concerned about possibly losing their property and thus profits, not that they had any moral compass. I'm not sure what the US has to do with it though, these companies are owned by people from all sorts of countries. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 months ago (1 child) I was talking more about them being concerned about possibly losing their property and thus profits, not that they had any moral compass. I'm not sure what the US has to do with it though, these companies are owned by people from all sorts of countries. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] muhyb@programming.dev -3 points 2 months ago (6 children) Well, that includes Russians. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago (5 children) Yes it does. It includes both Russian civilians and Ukrainian civilians permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] muhyb@programming.dev 3 points 2 months ago (4 children) No idea why I've been downvoted. Deliberately killing any civilians is a war crime. End of point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago* (3 children) Because your original comment says “well Russia does it …” kindof seems like you’re implying an “eye for an eye” situation is just here. If your comment was focusing on Russian civilian death, too, it doesn’t really seem like it, kinda more like you're trying to act like Russia kills way more Ukrainian civilians and that makes it ok that Ukraine can kill Russian civilians, because “well Russia does it too …” If that wasn’t your intention then I apologize but you must see how it comes off that way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] muhyb@programming.dev 7 points 2 months ago (2 children) I guess I've been misundestood. English does that to me time to time. What I meant is, there is no justification for attacking on civilians no matter which side you are on, that includes Russian civilians. Definitely didn't want to mean eye for an eye. That's terrible. Thanks for the heads up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (1 child) Well hey, your English has me convinced! I’d much rather give tips on English than explain why killing civilians, no matter who, is bad 😅 rock on friend ! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] muhyb@programming.dev 5 points 2 months ago Of course, having arguments over this shouldn't happen in the first place but sadly it happens, so I understand and appreciate your concern. Cheers! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago (5 children) Yes it does. It includes both Russian civilians and Ukrainian civilians permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] muhyb@programming.dev 3 points 2 months ago (4 children) No idea why I've been downvoted. Deliberately killing any civilians is a war crime. End of point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago* (3 children) Because your original comment says “well Russia does it …” kindof seems like you’re implying an “eye for an eye” situation is just here. If your comment was focusing on Russian civilian death, too, it doesn’t really seem like it, kinda more like you're trying to act like Russia kills way more Ukrainian civilians and that makes it ok that Ukraine can kill Russian civilians, because “well Russia does it too …” If that wasn’t your intention then I apologize but you must see how it comes off that way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] muhyb@programming.dev 7 points 2 months ago (2 children) I guess I've been misundestood. English does that to me time to time. What I meant is, there is no justification for attacking on civilians no matter which side you are on, that includes Russian civilians. Definitely didn't want to mean eye for an eye. That's terrible. Thanks for the heads up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (1 child) Well hey, your English has me convinced! I’d much rather give tips on English than explain why killing civilians, no matter who, is bad 😅 rock on friend ! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] muhyb@programming.dev 5 points 2 months ago Of course, having arguments over this shouldn't happen in the first place but sadly it happens, so I understand and appreciate your concern. Cheers! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] muhyb@programming.dev 3 points 2 months ago (4 children) No idea why I've been downvoted. Deliberately killing any civilians is a war crime. End of point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago* (3 children) Because your original comment says “well Russia does it …” kindof seems like you’re implying an “eye for an eye” situation is just here. If your comment was focusing on Russian civilian death, too, it doesn’t really seem like it, kinda more like you're trying to act like Russia kills way more Ukrainian civilians and that makes it ok that Ukraine can kill Russian civilians, because “well Russia does it too …” If that wasn’t your intention then I apologize but you must see how it comes off that way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] muhyb@programming.dev 7 points 2 months ago (2 children) I guess I've been misundestood. English does that to me time to time. What I meant is, there is no justification for attacking on civilians no matter which side you are on, that includes Russian civilians. Definitely didn't want to mean eye for an eye. That's terrible. Thanks for the heads up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (1 child) Well hey, your English has me convinced! I’d much rather give tips on English than explain why killing civilians, no matter who, is bad 😅 rock on friend ! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] muhyb@programming.dev 5 points 2 months ago Of course, having arguments over this shouldn't happen in the first place but sadly it happens, so I understand and appreciate your concern. Cheers! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago* (3 children) Because your original comment says “well Russia does it …” kindof seems like you’re implying an “eye for an eye” situation is just here. If your comment was focusing on Russian civilian death, too, it doesn’t really seem like it, kinda more like you're trying to act like Russia kills way more Ukrainian civilians and that makes it ok that Ukraine can kill Russian civilians, because “well Russia does it too …” If that wasn’t your intention then I apologize but you must see how it comes off that way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] muhyb@programming.dev 7 points 2 months ago (2 children) I guess I've been misundestood. English does that to me time to time. What I meant is, there is no justification for attacking on civilians no matter which side you are on, that includes Russian civilians. Definitely didn't want to mean eye for an eye. That's terrible. Thanks for the heads up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (1 child) Well hey, your English has me convinced! I’d much rather give tips on English than explain why killing civilians, no matter who, is bad 😅 rock on friend ! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] muhyb@programming.dev 5 points 2 months ago Of course, having arguments over this shouldn't happen in the first place but sadly it happens, so I understand and appreciate your concern. Cheers! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] muhyb@programming.dev 7 points 2 months ago (2 children) I guess I've been misundestood. English does that to me time to time. What I meant is, there is no justification for attacking on civilians no matter which side you are on, that includes Russian civilians. Definitely didn't want to mean eye for an eye. That's terrible. Thanks for the heads up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (1 child) Well hey, your English has me convinced! I’d much rather give tips on English than explain why killing civilians, no matter who, is bad 😅 rock on friend ! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] muhyb@programming.dev 5 points 2 months ago Of course, having arguments over this shouldn't happen in the first place but sadly it happens, so I understand and appreciate your concern. Cheers! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (1 child) Well hey, your English has me convinced! I’d much rather give tips on English than explain why killing civilians, no matter who, is bad 😅 rock on friend ! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] muhyb@programming.dev 5 points 2 months ago Of course, having arguments over this shouldn't happen in the first place but sadly it happens, so I understand and appreciate your concern. Cheers! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] muhyb@programming.dev 5 points 2 months ago Of course, having arguments over this shouldn't happen in the first place but sadly it happens, so I understand and appreciate your concern. Cheers! permalink fedilink source parent