3 ms·
Not all of it. If there isn't some responsibility on proper operations of munitions then you're saying it's okay for them to keep blowing up apt buildings on ac
by hunterb123 5y ago
Not all of it. If there isn't some responsibility on proper operations of munitions then you're saying it's okay for them to keep blowing up apt buildings on accident because Ruskies are there.
This should be remembered, those responsible in its operation should be reprimanded, and those civilians and their families should be compensated by the Ukrainian government. It should not be used as propaganda, it should be admitted as a mistake.
- jacquesm 5y agoMunitions can and do fail, rockets can and do go off territory. Taking into account how the Russians handled MH17, as a Dutch person I may be a bit biased but I think this is wholly on them. Russia is responsible, no matter how you want to dress it up. RCA. Or do you actually believe that reparations payments take into account which party did the damage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations
- justin66 5y agoAnti-aircraft weapons are inherently dangerous to the cities they protect. Shells are fired upward and many follow a ballistic path back down to earth, missiles are fired and quite often miss. Successfully deployed weapons cause airplanes, and all their fuel and ordnance, to fall out of the sky onto the landscape below. All of this is understood by the militaries who rely on these weapons. These are just the basic facts. No special expertise needed, of the sort the "I can tell what kind of missile this was by observing the smoke it makes" guy must possess. Shifting moral responsibility for collateral damage from the aggressor to the defender based on the limitations of the defender's arsenal does not seem right.