Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Doing the same tricks with the tanks, keep the cross-hair just off the target till the last second to prevent countermeasures until it's too late!

2 points --

Why might climate change (global warming presumably) be a blessing?

Who has chosen iPhones over clean water? are you sure they haven't chosen iPhones AND clean water over clean water alone?

"You and Wibb accuse me of lying, of being pro-Russian and being ignorant but expect me to keep talking to you?"

Lol. No absolutely not. I'd actually prefer of you didn't keep repeating absolute bolclocks.

But where exactly in my comment do I say you are "lying"? I'd suggest your comments are certainly more akin to fiction and certainly deluded but no I've not said anywhere you are "lying".

Are you pro-Russian? from your comments here - I'd say you most certainly are.

This is personal to me, more than you can imagine. Thus you/Wibb are more annoying than you can imagine

Well lots of things like the murder of innocent woman and children by murdering Russian scum in Ukraine is very personal to them. That you find other posters pointing out that your comments so far have been complete garbage "annoying" is noted. But the only one who can control your personal foibles is yourself.

Can't you just for a second ask yourselves why BBC did it? I read BBC, IT, NYT, Spiegel and other manipulated media mainly to know what the likes of you and Wibb think

BTW I believe its "Wibbs" not "Wibb". And bar posting on boards.ie I can't account for his posts nor he of mine 🤪

I really couldn't give a sh**te what you're reading. And as I don't subscribe to "BBC, IT, NYT, Spiegel and other manipulated media". So unless you're a bone fide clairvoyant - you don't have a notion what "the likes of" anyone here thinks.

"I consider it to be my duty to look for the truth and I don't appreciate disingenuity nor being accused of it."

If you are "looking for the truth" you're obviously looking in all the wrong places. Russia has an abysmal Environmental record. Plus they are some of the biggest warmongers in the history of the modern world. Look it up. You blaming only NATO members for everything is just too hillarious for words my friend.

BTW I never mentioned the BBC. The paper on Environmental degradation in Russia I linked to, may not be the "BBC", but it is well researched and has lots and lots of academic references. Lots of other academic studies on the shitfeist that is the Soviet Union and its abysmal Environmental record. May I suggest you go educate yourself and stop spreading pro Russian bs?

And you can check I have not "labeled anyone as an Putinversteher. I believe that is a German phrase no? I don't think anyone has used that here. Odd.

OMG! OK, I admit: Russians are evil by nature. They eat their children. I am Putin's spy trying to influence you to subvert the ROI and win the war...

Sure. If you say so...

Bye 👋

Ps. I don't have an IPhone. My water quality is fine btw.

Pity all those Russians and their lovely Apple products 😪

https://www.indy100.com/viral/russian-man-smashes-ipad-sanctions

I have no clue, but I assume lend lease has some restrictions, like any equipment not vital to US defense can be gifted to a non hostile country.

So any old tech can be given.

The 33bil could be more to do with modern systems which would specifically be sold to NATO countries/very close allies (Israel etc...) and would require some oversight.

It's definitely more complex than we think.

Military channels have been claiming Ukrainian pilots have been training on F-16s and the UAF have categorically denied it as recently as today at https://www.facebook.com/kpszsu:

The latest information from the Pentagon on air defence as of 29th April would also appear to nix NASAMS or Patriot:

Somehow I doubt the rest of the list is any more accurate; although M109s wouldn't be a surprise even if they're not the Paladin variant.

If you need to shout, you're already on the back foot

This seems to have been done with no fuss at all

https://youtu.be/bmmSDY-dtLY

This is a common theme with the Russian public in interviews on the street. They're convinced that the western audience is being subjected to propaganda and fake news about Russia and the war. What they don't realise is that people in the west have access to multiple news sources from many countries and can even tune in to what the Russian media are saying about the war.

Russian media coverage is shockingly threadbare by comparison - lots of stuff about the politics of the situation and the sanctions and so on but they don't wish to discuss Russian military or Ukrainian civilian losses i.e. the gruesome things you associate with a war.

Climate change, while catastrophic, will lead to the extinction of some/many species on Earth but not life as such or life as we know it. It might however lead to the extinction of humans or at least curb destructive human activity (or even cause a rethinking of humans) and, after a few million years, the planet, while somewhat different, will flourish again. However, without such catastrophic event, humans are unlikely to change their behavior and some of their activities might cause a complete extinction or, more likely, a near complete destruction of life.

The first suspect to cause this would be persistent organic pollutants. Studies show that the amount of plastic already in the environment might, once it disintegrates to nano-particles, will change the chemical composition of the environment that all, or nearly all life will become impossible.

So, if we were to disappear today, maybe only the more complex organisms will, over time, be extinct. But, if we survive another 20 years, maybe we will have produced enough plastic, chemical, bio-chemical, radioactive etc waste that will then inevitably lead to the extinction of all multicellular or just all organisms.

But of course climate change might instead prompt the civilization to produce more harmful material much faster or even destroy all life through nuclear, chemical etc war in a few days or hours. Still, it appears that without any catastrophic event we will destroy all life inescapably. (Again, eventually it will probably re-appear, but it might take billions of years and it might not be at all like the life I cherish).

As to the second point: it was just a metaphor I used in one of my previous posts and it makes much less sense taken out of context. What I meant is that the demand for artifacts blinds humans to the fact that they have nearly destroyed the basis of their existence. I absolutely did not mean to single out iPhones as being particularly harmful. I picked iPhones only because Apple was among the first to discontinue operating in Russia and is also the biggest company on the planet and i picked water because it is the most basic of the things we need. I could have just as well picked BMWs vs air.

I'll find a couple of inks to illustrate my thoughts.

Global human-made mass exceeds all living biomass | Nature

Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals – study | Wildlife | The Guardian

Just wondering in regards the video uploaded yesterday with the drone footage with the bomb falling through the sunroof of the car. What way does it work as the Russian soldiers were injured and you can make it out in the video and they were i presume going off to get medical attention and were taken out in the car and killed, the drone operator would of known this. I mean for example if it was a soldier shot and was trying to get away or heal/bandage himself and the enemy just walked over and shot him dead known perfectly well what he was doing or am I missing something with drones that they may know clearly what it happening on the ground and in that case would of known the soldiers were injured. Can they just keep up the kill factor and get them or is that a crime? Just more wondering in future wars will this be a thing, you injure an enemy with a drone and clearly see there down or trying to make there way outta the Battlefield and you finish them off still. Like I presume if you were a soldier and say you were shot and your there bandaging yourself up and a soldier came along and saw you and shot you it's a crime, is it not technically the same with a drone with the operator finishing someone off like that. Just curious on the rules as such in that scenario with drone operators.

Unless an enemy combatant is in custody or surrendering they are fair game - just because they are bandaging themselves and just as likely to shoot you doesn't mean they aren't fair game

I didn't see them raise their hands or wave a white flag

OK that's fair but I mean with drones you can be a fair bit from the front line and been attacked, it's not like you can surrender to a drone fair enough to an enemy combatant you can. I mean with a drone would you realise your getting attacked by a drone, those lads might of thought it was a mortar round or the likes. Just wonder down the line in future conflicts will there be some sort of rules be made in regards to drones with enemy that are injured. Is it going to be your injured we will finish you off even if ure limbs are blown off you or will there be rules set in place as soldiers might not realise that a drone has done the damage on them that once a drone operator sees they are injured they can't or should not engage them further. If there on about in future drones been fully AI will it just be built into them kill enemy combatants at all cost and take no prisoners even if you see some enemy soldier leaving the field of battle injured to whatever extent or on the Battlefield say more or less dying but another bomb/missile launched at him/her to finish them off for good measure.