I guess when you have a history of using butterfly mines and have committed countless war crimes in the last 6 months it’s easy for people to believe that you still are. Of course, none of what you wrote disproves the UK MoD’s recent claims that Russia is using butterfly mines in Donetsk.
Anyone can assert anything, so it does not follow every view is valid or equally valid unless disproven.
Vice versa. No assertion is valid until reasonably supported by evidence and reason, out-competing alternative explanation.
The burden of proof for a claim the Russian side is using Butterfly mines in the Ukraine is on the claimant, e.g. the UK MoD. Or you if upholding the allegation. If such proof exists, why is it not presented?
While not conclusive unto itself, factoring motive and opportunity, it does seems more likely the Butterfly mines dropped on Donetsk were from the Ukraine side.
From Forbes; "Ukraine became a state party to the Mine Ban Treaty in 2006, but still has stockpiles of millions of butterfly mines..."
While not conclusive unto itself, factoring motive and opportunity, it does seems more likely the butterfly mines dropped on Donetsk were from the Russian side. Or just more unsupported speculation on your behalf. I recall a certain poster, let's call him Ernest, saying that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." You have provided ZERO proof of your claim.
From Forbes; "They [butterfly mines] became notorious after the Soviets used them extensively in Afghanistan, often injuring curious children..."
Anyone can assert anything, so it does not follow every view is valid or equally valid unless disproven.
Vice versa. No assertion is valid until reasonably supported by evidence and reason, out-competing alternative explanation.
The burden of proof for a claim the Russian side is using Butterfly mines in the Ukraine is on the claimant, e.g. the UK MoD. Or you if upholding the allegation. If such proof exists, why is it not presented?
While not conclusive unto itself, factoring motive and opportunity, it does seems more likely the Butterfly mines dropped on Donetsk were from the Ukraine side.
From Forbes; "Ukraine became a state party to the Mine Ban Treaty in 2006, but still has stockpiles of millions of butterfly mines..."
While not conclusive unto itself, factoring motive and opportunity, it does seems more likely the butterfly mines dropped on Donetsk were from the Russian side. Or just more unsupported speculation on your behalf. I recall a certain poster, let's call him Ernest, saying that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." You have provided ZERO proof of your claim.
From Forbes; "They [butterfly mines] became notorious after the Soviets used them extensively in Afghanistan, often injuring curious children..."
This post is so fallaciously flawed it can only be seen as intentional sophistry.
For the third time, I reported allegations made by others - than later made estimation of a balance of probabilities that the Ukraine side was more likely than not to have been responsible for dropping Butterfly mines on Russian-held territory. This estimation was based on motive (that being abundantly plain) and opportunity (Ukraine is acknowledged to posses an inventory of millions of the banned mines in question).
The estimation of what seemed more likely than not was qualified then and since as being suggestive but non-conclusive.
This is entirely more information and qualification than provided by "UK Intelligence" whose assertion of Russian use of Butterfly mines in the Ukraine has been upheld as fact, despite a total lack of substantiation - and deemed to stand unless somehow satisfactorily disproved.
You are not even trying to think rationally.
Bias has painted you so far in the corner, you can't see the door.
. . . it seems more likely than not based on motive (combatants tend to attack the other side and not their own) and opportunity (the Ukraine side has millions of butterfly mines).
This is not hard to follow.
"LOL!"
The area that was mined was a civilian region within Russian controlled territory of no special military value. Not clear how that fits into the "attack the other side" model.
Extending this logic, attributing any attack on a civilian target is difficult because it lacks "special military value."
Regardless of what sense this makes, attacks on civilian targets routinely occur, from all sides in the Ukraine conflict, and in every other conflict.
The operative words here are "Russian controlled territory" This is all that is required to qualify as "the other side" from a Ukraine perspective.
While not conclusive unto itself, factoring motive and opportunity, it does seems more likely the butterfly mines dropped on Donetsk were from the Russian side. Or just more unsupported speculation on your behalf. I recall a certain poster, let's call him Ernest, saying that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." You have provided ZERO proof of your claim.
From Forbes; "They [butterfly mines] became notorious after the Soviets used them extensively in Afghanistan, often injuring curious children..."
This post is so fallaciously flawed it can only be seen as intentional sophistry.
For the third time, I reported allegations made by others - than later made estimation of a balance of probabilities that the Ukraine side was more likely than not to have been responsible for dropping Butterfly mines on Russian-held territory. This estimation was based on motive (that being abundantly plain) and opportunity (Ukraine is acknowledged to posses an inventory of millions of the banned mines in question).
The estimation of what seemed more likely than not was qualified then and since as being suggestive but non-conclusive.
This is entirely more information and qualification than provided by "UK Intelligence" whose assertion of Russian use of Butterfly mines in the Ukraine has been upheld as fact, despite a total lack of substantiation - and deemed to stand unless somehow satisfactorily disproved.
You are not even trying to think rationally.
Bias has painted you so far in the corner, you can't see the door.
In post 5351 you write:
"While not conclusive unto itself, factoring motive and opportunity, it does seems more likely the Butterfly mines dropped on Donetsk were from the Ukraine side."
This is not you "reporting allegations made by others." It's you stating a claim (even if couched in terms to make it entirely non-definitive). Now, it's entirely unclear how you reached this conclusion. You mention no specific motive for Ukraine to use butterfly mines in Donetsk. You don't mention any specific opportunity that makes it more likely that Ukraine deployed butterfly mines in Ukraine. So, your entire "argument" rests on your opinion and is unsupported by any facts, nor is it corroborated by any evidence. On the other hand, Russia has a history of using butterfly mines and still possess a stockpile of millions of them. They've also deployed other anti-personnel mines in Ukraine. And they have motive. And they have opportunity. Now, I'm not saying that Russia deployed butterfly mines in Ukraine, but if it quacks like a duck and commits war crimes, it's probably maybe most likely, but not conclusively, a Russian duck.
My job is to post on Letsrun like many foreign assets are paid to do.
I never said you were being paid. Not all assets are equally valuable.
What do you think a "foreign asset" is?
More Definitions of foreign asset foreign asset means any asset issued, guaranteed or owing by any Obligor organized under the laws of any OECD Country (other than the United States of America) and which is denominated and payable in United States dollars, Canadian dollars, Euros, Sterling, Swiss Francs or Australian dollars.
Want to explain how I am a foreign asset Sir Isaac?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
