The media did cover this. The problem is who to believe: The Russian media said that only the Ukr forces used Grads. The Ukr forces said they didn't use Grads against towns. But that the "rebels" sited Grads, mortars, etc., in residential areas. For the latter there's enough video and reports to say that the rebels did site artobstrel units in residential areas and are simply lying or they aren't in good command of a lot of the Chechen forces fighting for them. Not much video to say that the Ukr forces have been using rocket-propelled artillery against civilian centers--most of the reports are from residents *inside* the towns, and when the artillery goes a couple of kilometers you know you're not talking eye-witnesses but people who have been told this or surmise it.
One site did a masterful job of showing some of the video that "proved" the Ukr army fired Grads at a residential part of Lugansk. They pointed out that the angle that the rockets were landing at was too low for them to have gone far. The launch site had to be well within rebel territory. Later another video of the same attack showed up. Now you see rockets launched away from Luhansk towards the Ukr army. A minute later you see rockets launched in the opposite direction from the same site, towards Luhansk. First report in the Russian press was this was an unmotivated attack against Luhansk. Then an attack against Luhansk forces that missed the mark. Then it was a provocation--the nasty Ukr forces managed to send a column of armed vehicles deep into rebel-held territory for the purpose of attacking Luhansk. (Unless you pay attention to how a story evolves, you're duped. Take the Savchenko POW/criminal in Moscow. The initial story was that Ukr forces fired on the journalists at a checkpoint intentionally. The journalists were wearing vests that said "Press" and were protected. Clearly visible to those firing, the killing was a murder, a war crime against known reporters. Now the claim is that Savchenko is responsible for their deaths. While flying a chopper, she saw the checkpoint. She radioed the checkpoint's coordinates to those firing mortars--which only makes sense if those doing the attacking couldn't see the checkpoint. But it raises the question--if she did this, and that's going to be a bear to prove by non-Russian standards, could she see their press vests? But the conclusion--that it was an intentional murder of a Russian reporter, is still considered valid.)
Today the news out of Lugansk was that local pressure got the rebels to re-site a launch site from a school courtyard to a place near a checkpoint. Another was that locals were taking cover because the LPR launched some salvos at a Ukr force checkpoint near Metalist (just north of Luhansk). The problem was the reports said that the salvo was launched from a "thickly populated" area, and that kind of thing either says, "Please, use human shields for protection" or "Please, bomb us. The Russia 1 crew's a few blocks away, waiting."
Media law says that you don't bomb civilian areas or infrastructure, he who throws the bomb that kills civilians is a murderer. International law says that it's a war crime to use civilian structures or locations for military use--and to do so immediately converts them into military targets, which can be attacked if the risks of collateral damage are outweighed by the military value of the target. We firmly know this and use it to our PR advantage when those we don't like are the ones being killed--IDF troops in a school, NATO troops in a mosque courtyard. But if the right people are in a school, using a religious building as an arms dump or using a hospital as a base of operations, then it's something that's impermissible to attack. Yet the rule stands: You use a civilian site to launch an attack, you're responsible for civilians deaths that result. Put anti-aircraft artillery on a college building, you've rendered it a target and assumed responsibility for that civilian infrastructure's demise. Even if you're a "freedom fighter" and get killed as a result. Use your living room as a command post and if your family gets blown up, you've killed them just as much as if you took a knife to their throat.
The other problem is that this is from 7/5, and so it's past news. The town was surrendered to the Ukr forces. Now, depending on who you talk to it was to spare the civilian population the horrors of war, it was part of a strategic redeployment that allows the use of partisan tactics and for some of the hundreds of boobytraps to kill nasty fascists, or it was part of a retreat because the Russian in charge of the town couldn't hold out and ran--leaving behind some hostages, a lot of munitions but with truckloads of spoils of war. The forces of good are still removing boobytraps and landmines from roads, railroads, public buildings; finding weapons caches in basements and abandoned stores; and probably will do so for weeks to come. Meanwhile, those basements are stores are open for civilians to go into. And landmines laid by the forces of good have already killed civilians in other parts of the promised land. (And even though they may be seen laying the landmines, they insist that Right Sector forces carrying hundreds of landmines have penetrated deep behind enemy lines, dug up roads to bury them and then put down fresh asphalt, or placed the mines in farmers' fields ... all during the night. Only card-carrying natsboly and KP-DNR and KP-LNR folk seriously believe this.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
