kwaigonegin
Colonel
Hope they are better prepared to actively engaged. Back in 2016 there were very scathing reports of Chinese peacekeepers being shell.shocked and ran.
PLA Ground Forces news, pics and videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
That is one helluva oxymoron.
US based Rights group :vomit:
What the f would a fucking rights group in the US know anything about an incident in an active war zone on the other side of the world lmao.
They may know because they started the war/colored revolution...
kwaigonegin
Colonel
They know more than you that's for sure.
Were you there? Do you know for sure it didn't happen?
While I know news are not always 100% reliable, I also find it improbable that witnesses would just conjure something like this out of thin air.
Are you just butthurt and triggered with rage and disbelief because God forbid a few PLA soldiers out of a million may have dereliction of duties while overseas due to potential inexperienced?
Have they been in a firefight? Have you? It's nervewrecking. It's human nature is to turn tail and run.
I hope you are not one of those who thinks every PLA member is a perfect warfighter and no mistakes are made, ever.
I got news for ya.. they are not. Just like there have been countless incidents of US or <insert country of choice> military personnel doing things similar or far worst.
Your response shows me immaturity in this forum.
Of course the story is possible, everything is possible. However US NGO has next to zero credibility, nine times out of tens it turns out to be fabrications and lies, no one will take you seriously.
by78
General
A clickbait title. The peace keepers were caught between two warring parties and had to vacate a compound after it came under shelling. The UN peace keepers must follow strict impartiality in a conflict zone, meaning evacuation is the only option in this instance, since fighting back would likely result in becoming an active participant in the civil war.
Contrary to popular belief, and , peace keepers are under no obligation to render humanitarian assistance, especially in a fluid conflict zone, where many adverse circumstances may exist that deter aid from being rendered. Heck, remember ? We let our own ambassador die despite his repeated pleas for help. I guess Hillary didn't wake up for that or to check her .
Last edited:
by78
General
And here's another thing that bugs me about the article, it states that UN peacekeepers were under artillery fire, which killed two soldiers. As far as I know, Chinese peacekeepers don't possess artillery or air force of their own. Ideally, you'd want to answer artillery with airstrikes or artillery fire of your own, but since neither option was likely available, the tactical decision to evacuate was not only sound, but possibly the only option.
Naturally, one shouldn't expect The Guardian to understand this, and even if by some miracle that it did, it'd be out of character for it to take that into consideration, since it would make this a non-story. The Guardian had to print something because it's in the business of printing stories.
Yes, I understand the headline of UN peacekeepers "abandoning from their posts" was too good to pass on, but people should be made aware that UN peacekeepers are not required to render humanitarian aid beyond their specific mandate. That may sound morally suspect, but a great many things .
I think The Guardian should be regarded as a disreputable source in the same vein as CNN. Neither is in the business of informing the public, and therefore neither deserve a place here.
Last edited:
Take for example ...
Tiananmen "Massacre" -
Spanish ambassador to Beijing, "Eugenio Bregolat, notes that Spain’s TVE channel had a television crew in the square at the time, and if there had been a massacre, they would have been the first to see it and record it." - but in fact there was nothing in the square - "He points out angrily that most of the reports of an alleged massacre were made by journalists hunkered down in the safe haven of the Beijing Hotel, some distance from the square."
"Graham Earnshaw, a down-to-earth Reuters correspondent who spent the night of June 3-4 at the alleged site of the massacre — at the center of Tiananmen Square — interviewing students in detail until the troops finally arrived in the early dawn. He too failed to see any massacre. As he writes in his memoirs, I was probably the only foreigner who saw the clearing of the square from the square itself.”
Kuwaiti Incubators - - Western media follow a depressingly familiar formula when it comes to the preparation of a nation for conflict
Take the Kuwaiti babies story. Its origins go back to the first world war when British propaganda accused the Germans of tossing Belgian babies into the air and catching them on their bayonets. Dusted off and updated for the Gulf war, this version had Iraqi soldiers bursting into a modern Kuwaiti hospital, finding the premature babies ward and then tossing the babies out of incubators so that the incubators could be sent back to Iraq.
In the Senate debate whether to approve military action to force Saddam out of Kuwait, seven senators specifically mentioned the incubator babies atrocity and the final margin in favour of war was just five votes. John R Macarthur's study of propaganda in the war says that the babies atrocity was a definitive moment in the campaign to prepare the American public for the need to go to war.
It was not until nearly two years later that the truth emerged. The story was a fabrication and a myth, and Nayirah, the teenage Kuwaiti girl, coached and rehearsed by Hill & Knowlton for her appearance before the Congressional Committee, was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. By the time Macarthur revealed this, the war was won and over and it did not matter any more.
Shall we go on ... ?
or do you get the picture?
(ie. fake "witness" accounts that colour the narrative)
It goes without saying that you were not there either?
Given the propensity of all governments to propagandise and spread disinformation (yes, including western govt and complicit western msm), it's only fair that any narrative is called to question. It may show more maturity to question a counter assertion and ask for substantiation than to resort to ad hominem and claim some absent moral high ground.
I think subsequent posters have offered a more nuanced view of the event.