Londonrake wrote: Well, the first sentence is what I suppose GR might class as abusive. You have no idea what I know or don't know on the matter. As, neither do I wrt yourself. Don't assume and if you have personal experience then do tell us about it. I'm sure folk are all ears.
I actually said it "looks to me", just to give you the chance to prove the opposite.
Now I am sure you know nothing.
GR wrote: On a different note, I like how Russia is rewriting the rules how REAL MEN should fight, not America’s cowardly way of slaughtering civilians from 3km away before even landing somewhere!
LR wrote: I would suggest that encircling a city with such a population and relentlessly pounding the place from well outside, until it's entirely flattened, (do look at the pics) shows that statement in the ridiculous and hypocritical light it deserves. Infantile histrionics. Excitement and pleasure oozing out of it.
OK fair enough. However there is a difference between giving the civilians multiple chances to leave as the Russians did, and to what according to GR the Americans were doing.
LR wrote: The Russians seem to have initially done exactly as you say - engaged in street war. Their loses (well, if you believe the "propaganda" that is) were significant, so they've reverted to the current, well tried in Syria and Chechen, slaughter tactics.
The facts are a) the civilians were given the chance to leave multiple times. b) The Russians asked the mayor to surrender the town and he refused. c) The Russians flattened the place.
Do you know any other way of taking a city? I don’t.
Fyi that’s exactly what the British did in Cyprus to eradicate just one single Eoka fighter. They burned the whole mountain! They didn’t even dare go close to the place they knew he was hiding.