Almost 90 bombs were dropped in one region in just 24 hours.

Russia unleashed an unprecedented bombardment in southern Ukraine overnight in what local officials described as a “massive attack” in the conflict which has continued to rage even as the international community’s attention has moved to the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

The Ukrainian Internal Affairs Ministry on Monday morning said Russia dropped at least “87 aerial bombs on populated areas of the Kherson region - the largest number for all time.” At least eight people were also injured in other Russian strikes carried out in the Odessa region further to the west on Sunday night.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Current events in Rohingya I’d classify as genocide

    We’ll go with the first.

    In August 2017, a deadly crackdown by Myanmar’s army on Rohingya Muslims sent hundreds of thousands fleeing across the border into Bangladesh.

    They risked everything to escape by sea or on foot a military offensive which the United Nations later described as a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing”.

    In January 2020, the UN’s top court ordered the Buddhist-majority country to take measures to protect members of its Rohingya community from genocide.

    But the army in Myanmar (formerly Burma) has said it was fighting Rohingya militants and denies targeting civilians. The country’s leader Aung San Suu Kyi, once a human rights icon, has repeatedly denied allegations of genocide.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41566561

    So, Myanmar claimed they were targeting terrorists, but there was lots of civilians deaths which caused noncombatants to flee their homes or risk being killed… Which meets the Geneva Conventions definition of genocide as it’s ethnic cleansing.

    To me, that sounds like what’s going on in Gaza.

    Can we talk about how you feel these are different?

    I legitimately want to work through this, but I might not be replying as fast as this morning.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        First reports are always wrong

        What does that mean?

        If a woman reports her own rape, it never happened? Because she’s the first to report it?

        And why do you think the UN was the first to report?

        They’re an international organization of multiple governments. They don’t make these reports off hand, the quote talks about things from 2017 in 2020, that’s three years later, how is that a “first report”?

        Are you saying you’ve changed your mind now and Rohingya isn’t a genocide?

        • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          It means the first report of anything is always wrong. Details, time of events, witnesses, what actually happened is always wrong when first reported. Generally everything you hear in the first report is wrong and you should always wait until details become clear.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            But you said that about a 2020 article talking about a genocide that started in 2017…

            Is three years not enough time for details to become clear?

            If that’s true, today is 11/6, about a month after 10/7, why do you already have such solid opinions on that?

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Which is what the government commiting the genocide said…

                But that’s not the point. The point is the reason it’s a genocide, is the same thing Israel is doing.

                Are you trying to make the case that no one should believe Israels initial claim that everyone they kill is justified by terrorism? Because that’s where your logic is going, but that’s the opposite position you’ve had this entire thread.

                • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That was the first report, it was wrong, as always. It’s clear the attacks on the population were targeted to wipe them out. No one is arguing that.

                  Now can you prove Israel is doing that, because multiple reports have shown evidence that it isn’t. They do desire to relocate the entire population, but not wipe them out. Both sides of this conflict are in the wrong but both sides have been fighting the same conflict for thousands of years. There is absolutely no reason both groups couldn’t live together in harmony if the populations wanted it to.

                  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You’ve literally admitted that they’re using “forced relocation” by making the area unsafe for civilians which is what also got your first example of a genocide, designated a genocide…

                    Now you’re saying they’re not?

                    Can you not name a single difference between the two genocides and why that makes only one a genocide?

                    Without repeating that you never believe initial reports while at the same time repeating Israels initial reports as gospel?