6 ms·

Placing him in chokehold and putting a gun to his head is a bit extreme, no? Security people seizing journalists' phones and deleting pictures seems to be prett

Placing him in chokehold and putting a gun to his head is a bit extreme, no? Security people seizing journalists' phones and deleting pictures seems to be pretty much routine. https://twitter.com/sethharpesq/status/1519849084286386177#m https://twitter.com/sethharpesq/status/1519849084286386177#m

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
They don't really do "stand around and argue for 10min and then finally bust out the tazer when you still won't get in the damn car" enforcement in war zones.
dralley 4y ago
But it's not like he just took the pictures, he immediately posted them on the internet. The damage was already done and their anger was somewhat justified. Given that he's a professional and supposed to know better, what he did is difficult to distinguish from spying.
unreal37 4y ago
I assumed they would have shot him on the spot. Chokehold seems mild. You're in a war zone. Shooting people who put you in harm is a thing.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  - dralley 4y ago
    I can't believe I actually need to say this, and I'm not even sure whether responding to such lunacy is a good idea, but: No. Mass rape, kidnapping and murder of civilians is not how wars have historically been won, and they are certainly not "necessary". Wars are won when the enemy no longer has the ability or willingness to fight. Committing atrocities against civilians rarely accomplishes anything more than increasing of the enemy, unless their situation was already hopeless to begin with.
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      >I can't believe I actually need to say this, and I'm not even sure whether responding to such lunacy is a good idea, but: >No. Mass rape, kidnapping and murder of civilians is not how wars have historically been won, and they are certainly not "necessary" I cant believe I actually need to say this but trucks leave tire tracks in the dirt. You're gonna have a hell of a time dragging an army (especially a conscript army that needs far more ideological motivation than a professional army) across a country without leaving some ancillary destruction behind.
      - dralley 4y ago
        There is massive, massive, incredible difference between those things happening as "ancillary destruction" and those things being part of "the mindset needed to win a war"
        orbifold 4y ago
        There have been very few semi-symmetrical conflicts in the last ~70+ years. The fire-bombing of Tokyo, Dresden and total destruction of a substantial number of civilian infrastructure in Germany and Japan were considered absolutely necessary to win the war. Similarly the mind-number number of casualties the Soviet army sustained even in the battle of Berlin, at the end of the war or the losses it absorbed in the battles of Kharkiv, in the defense of Moskau and St. Petersburg have no parallel in modern warfare.
        dralley 4y ago
        >The fire-bombing of Tokyo, Dresden and total destruction of a substantial number of civilian infrastructure in Germany and Japan were considered absolutely necessary to win the war. I think this only helps my point, because with the benefit of hindsight it is clear that the bombings of London, Dresden, Tokyo, Stalingrad and many other cities were of absolutely minimal value in ending the war except insofar as it damaged military targets in those cities - and in many cases it was outright counterproductive (e.g. London). Name a single war, or battle in which atrocities against civilians have helped the aggressors, in a situation where the defending side wasn't already militarily defeated (e.g. German or Soviet occupied countries)? It didn't help in Chechnya, Vietnam, or Yugoslavia (either during WWII or in the 90s). Even the impact of the nuclear bombs is heavily debated. The Imperial Japanese military still wanted to continue the war, and the Emperor was less concerned with the plight of civilians than what was going to happen to himself after the war. The only universally effective method of winning a war is destroying the enemy's ability to fight. Cruelty towards non-belligerents is not required to do this.
jacquesm 4y ago
He's lucky he didn't get shot, I take it everybody is by now aware that there is a war going on there. The difference between 'Russian spy' and 'Dutch journalist' is in this case small enough that he should have been grateful at the restraint shown, especially given that he had ignored multiple summons to remove the content.
rdtsc 4y ago
It’s war time there. The Russians may call it by other words, but hopefully we’d know better. He may have been responsible for helping target and kill many civilians. He was asked to stop and he didn’t. Why didn’t they politely ask again, while maybe offering a cup of tea or something? It would be nice if they would have, but like we said it’s war time there.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > He may have been responsible for helping target and kill many civilians. He was asked to stop and he didn’t. Why didn’t they politely ask again, while maybe offering a cup of tea or something? It would be nice if they would have, but like we said it’s war time there. Exactly. It's a luxury to treat a bratty punk with kid gloves, and some people don't have that luxury.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago

They don't really do "stand around and argue for 10min and then finally bust out the tazer when you still won't get in the damn car" enforcement in war zones.

dralley 4y ago

But it's not like he just took the pictures, he immediately posted them on the internet. The damage was already done and their anger was somewhat justified. Given that he's a professional and supposed to know better, what he did is difficult to distinguish from spying.

unreal37 4y ago

I assumed they would have shot him on the spot. Chokehold seems mild. You're in a war zone. Shooting people who put you in harm is a thing.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
- dralley 4y ago
  I can't believe I actually need to say this, and I'm not even sure whether responding to such lunacy is a good idea, but: No. Mass rape, kidnapping and murder of civilians is not how wars have historically been won, and they are certainly not "necessary". Wars are won when the enemy no longer has the ability or willingness to fight. Committing atrocities against civilians rarely accomplishes anything more than increasing of the enemy, unless their situation was already hopeless to begin with.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    >I can't believe I actually need to say this, and I'm not even sure whether responding to such lunacy is a good idea, but: >No. Mass rape, kidnapping and murder of civilians is not how wars have historically been won, and they are certainly not "necessary" I cant believe I actually need to say this but trucks leave tire tracks in the dirt. You're gonna have a hell of a time dragging an army (especially a conscript army that needs far more ideological motivation than a professional army) across a country without leaving some ancillary destruction behind.
    - dralley 4y ago
      There is massive, massive, incredible difference between those things happening as "ancillary destruction" and those things being part of "the mindset needed to win a war"
      - orbifold 4y ago
        There have been very few semi-symmetrical conflicts in the last ~70+ years. The fire-bombing of Tokyo, Dresden and total destruction of a substantial number of civilian infrastructure in Germany and Japan were considered absolutely necessary to win the war. Similarly the mind-number number of casualties the Soviet army sustained even in the battle of Berlin, at the end of the war or the losses it absorbed in the battles of Kharkiv, in the defense of Moskau and St. Petersburg have no parallel in modern warfare.
        dralley 4y ago
        >The fire-bombing of Tokyo, Dresden and total destruction of a substantial number of civilian infrastructure in Germany and Japan were considered absolutely necessary to win the war. I think this only helps my point, because with the benefit of hindsight it is clear that the bombings of London, Dresden, Tokyo, Stalingrad and many other cities were of absolutely minimal value in ending the war except insofar as it damaged military targets in those cities - and in many cases it was outright counterproductive (e.g. London). Name a single war, or battle in which atrocities against civilians have helped the aggressors, in a situation where the defending side wasn't already militarily defeated (e.g. German or Soviet occupied countries)? It didn't help in Chechnya, Vietnam, or Yugoslavia (either during WWII or in the 90s). Even the impact of the nuclear bombs is heavily debated. The Imperial Japanese military still wanted to continue the war, and the Emperor was less concerned with the plight of civilians than what was going to happen to himself after the war. The only universally effective method of winning a war is destroying the enemy's ability to fight. Cruelty towards non-belligerents is not required to do this.

jacquesm 4y ago

He's lucky he didn't get shot, I take it everybody is by now aware that there is a war going on there. The difference between 'Russian spy' and 'Dutch journalist' is in this case small enough that he should have been grateful at the restraint shown, especially given that he had ignored multiple summons to remove the content.

rdtsc 4y ago

It’s war time there. The Russians may call it by other words, but hopefully we’d know better. He may have been responsible for helping target and kill many civilians. He was asked to stop and he didn’t. Why didn’t they politely ask again, while maybe offering a cup of tea or something? It would be nice if they would have, but like we said it’s war time there.

tablespoon 4y ago
> He may have been responsible for helping target and kill many civilians. He was asked to stop and he didn’t. Why didn’t they politely ask again, while maybe offering a cup of tea or something? It would be nice if they would have, but like we said it’s war time there. Exactly. It's a luxury to treat a bratty punk with kid gloves, and some people don't have that luxury.