Poo tin... Put@in...
Comments
-
So you feel qualified to make statements regarding tactical battle decisons based on youtr grand military experience of, errrrrr, less than zero but you haven,'t noticed the trial for murder of a Russisn soldier?rick_chasey said:Yeah. Most of what I've read are reports that the Russians have made material advances in three key areas in the last 24hrs and it's not obvious if that's Ukraine retreating as part of a defensive strategy or being pushed back because they're getting beaten.
#milk.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Well the statement was that I read that, tbf, not that I was presenting my own view on the situation.0
-
Isn't this trial just the Ukrainian war equivalent of Heard/Depp?
I'm sure it's all very interesting, but it's a bit of a small detail in the grand scheme of things?0 -
Seriously?rick_chasey said:Isn't this trial just the Ukrainian war equivalent of Heard/Depp?
I'm sure it's all very interesting, but it's a bit of a small detail in the grand scheme of things?
Seriously seriously seriously?
You're comparing murder to Heard/Depp?
Seriously?.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Well, what you've posted and comparing it to Heard/Depp reads like you are presenting a view Richard.rick_chasey said:Well the statement was that I read that, tbf, not that I was presenting my own view on the situation.
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
So what were the Nuremberg trials? Waggatha Christie?MattFalle said:
Seriously?rick_chasey said:Isn't this trial just the Ukrainian war equivalent of Heard/Depp?
I'm sure it's all very interesting, but it's a bit of a small detail in the grand scheme of things?
Seriously seriously seriously?
You're comparing murder to Heard/Depp?
Seriously?.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
If you want to argue a trial about one soldier in the middle of a war involving hundreds of thousands of other soldiers and millions of civilians is not trivial in the context of the war, go for it.
I'd say the status where the fighting is going on and how each side is getting on is probably more relevant, but hey, what do I know?
Congress just approved $40bn of US aid, military and food, which seems like quite a lot, given it's about 60% of Russia's entire annual spending on the military.0 -
This exactly.rick_chasey said:but hey, what do I know?
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Rightrick_chasey said:If you want to argue a trial about one soldier in the middle of a war involving hundreds of thousands of other soldiers and millions of civilians is not trivial in the context of the war, go for it.
I'd say the status where the fighting is going on and how each side is getting on is probably more relevant, but hey, what do I know?
Congress just approved $40bn of US aid, military and food, which seems like quite a lot, given it's about 60% of Russia's entire annual spending on the military.
1. You're missing the whole point. Right, first of all there is the crime he's being tried for.
Now have a wonder at the broader implications and report back.
2. You know nothing about what is happening on the ground. Only about ten people on each side do and none of use are one of those twenty. You are reading unclassified out of date headlines.
3. So go on then, tell us about it Rick. The $40 bill. Can you explain the back story please. We're waiting..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Can someone explain to me in simple terms what kind of killing is acceptable in a war situation.
I suspect that the answer is more complex than can be explained to me while I finish my sandwich but the way i see it, killing people is normally illegal, in war it's a bit legal (I presume, since both sides are flinging high explosives at each other and very few get tried for war crimes) but how do you know which side of that law you are on if nobody has declared war?0 -
Follow LOAC/ROE and you're cool. Geneva Convention is your top cover.
Anything outside of LOAC/ROE is not and you'll get done by the beak. Expect a meeting, no coffee.
Tbh, its pretty simple because generally its quite a highly, stressful, kinetic environment with fairly charged emotions so people need clear rules..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Think it's a bit of a stretch to think that a government like the CCP would be so outraged by one questionable trial of a low rank Russian soldier that they materially change their conditional support of Russia.First.Aspect said:
It was a show trial. Real murder cases take months and years to come to court. Real war crimes trials take years and decades.MattFalle said:They captured a war criminal who confessed to his crime.
Its an open legal trial
What do you want them to do? Take him out the back and slot him?
Did that guy have any option but to confess? Was he incentivized to confess? Did he get an effective defence? Or did the same body appoint both the prosecution and defence attorney?
Is he even a Russian soldier?
Was that woman a widow?
No matter how much bluster you have MF, you actually haven't got a clue either. And if I can spin this as something that looks like a breach of the Geneva Convention, I'm pretty sure Chinese state media can manage as well.
There are leaders of countries with combined poulations of several billion who don't need much excuse to either not side with the west, or side against the west.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Definition of war crimes:monkimark said:Can someone explain to me in simple terms what kind of killing is acceptable in a war situation.
I suspect that the answer is more complex than can be explained to me while I finish my sandwich but the way i see it, killing people is normally illegal, in war it's a bit legal (I presume, since both sides are flinging high explosives at each other and very few get tried for war crimes) but how do you know which side of that law you are on if nobody has declared war?
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml
0 -
The Russians would appear to be using that definition as a tick list.Pross said:
Definition of war crimes:monkimark said:Can someone explain to me in simple terms what kind of killing is acceptable in a war situation.
I suspect that the answer is more complex than can be explained to me while I finish my sandwich but the way i see it, killing people is normally illegal, in war it's a bit legal (I presume, since both sides are flinging high explosives at each other and very few get tried for war crimes) but how do you know which side of that law you are on if nobody has declared war?
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
.
The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
I did read a bit of the stuff about war crimes and it all seems pretty logical - don't shoot prisoners or bomb schools etc.
I guess the question I should have asked is when do you know when you're in a war, given that Russia are claiming they aren't at war. Does the LOAC just kick in as soon as soldiers start firing at each other?
Presumably it would be illegal for Belgium to just send a division into the Netherlands and start shelling the local barracks even though that seems to be allowed under the LOAC?0 -
Add this in - MATT6
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Yeah, they may as well have just not signed up to it!rjsterry said:
The Russians would appear to be using that definition as a tick list.Pross said:
Definition of war crimes:monkimark said:Can someone explain to me in simple terms what kind of killing is acceptable in a war situation.
I suspect that the answer is more complex than can be explained to me while I finish my sandwich but the way i see it, killing people is normally illegal, in war it's a bit legal (I presume, since both sides are flinging high explosives at each other and very few get tried for war crimes) but how do you know which side of that law you are on if nobody has declared war?
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml
I thought it also covered something about publicly parading PoWs and getting them to admit to wrongdoing (my words, but along those lines) that may have put the trial on the fringes but there's nothing there I can see other than something covering kangeroo courts (the Ukrainians appear to have used a legitimate court so that wouldn't be covered).0 -
You fon't have to be at war - this is not a war, Vietnam wasn't a war, N Ireland wasn't a war. They were police actions.monkimark said:I did read a bit of the stuff about war crimes and it all seems pretty logical - don't shoot prisoners or bomb schools etc.
I guess the question I should have asked is when do you know when you're in a war, given that Russia are claiming they aren't at war. Does the LOAC just kick in as soon as soldiers start firing at each other?
Presumably it would be illegal for Belgium to just send a division into the Netherlands and start shelling the local barracks even though that seems to be allowed under the LOAC?
UN peace keeping tours - Mali, S Sudan, Kenya, Sierra Leone, Cyprus - aren't a war but everyone is still slotting each other.
Essentially as soon as your Govt says its an armed conflict - you'll find out when you get to PDT and you start to get the lectures and it all gets serious..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
1 -
You get one of these for easy ref that covers a lot of stuff you need.
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Of course they don't need to be outraged. This is about having an excuse for gaining economic benefit by buying cheap oil fro Russia and selling Russia useful things like electronics. Right now China are sort of staying out of it, but it's economically beneficial for them at some stage not to.rjsterry said:
Think it's a bit of a stretch to think that a government like the CCP would be so outraged by one questionable trial of a low rank Russian soldier that they materially change their conditional support of Russia.First.Aspect said:
It was a show trial. Real murder cases take months and years to come to court. Real war crimes trials take years and decades.MattFalle said:They captured a war criminal who confessed to his crime.
Its an open legal trial
What do you want them to do? Take him out the back and slot him?
Did that guy have any option but to confess? Was he incentivized to confess? Did he get an effective defence? Or did the same body appoint both the prosecution and defence attorney?
Is he even a Russian soldier?
Was that woman a widow?
No matter how much bluster you have MF, you actually haven't got a clue either. And if I can spin this as something that looks like a breach of the Geneva Convention, I'm pretty sure Chinese state media can manage as well.
There are leaders of countries with combined poulations of several billion who don't need much excuse to either not side with the west, or side against the west.
0 -
Unaccpectable killing is what the other side does.monkimark said:Can someone explain to me in simple terms what kind of killing is acceptable in a war situation.
I suspect that the answer is more complex than can be explained to me while I finish my sandwich but the way i see it, killing people is normally illegal, in war it's a bit legal (I presume, since both sides are flinging high explosives at each other and very few get tried for war crimes) but how do you know which side of that law you are on if nobody has declared war?0 -
I think the Alexander Blackman case may prove you wrong.TheBigBean said:
Unaccpectable killing is what the other side does.monkimark said:Can someone explain to me in simple terms what kind of killing is acceptable in a war situation.
I suspect that the answer is more complex than can be explained to me while I finish my sandwich but the way i see it, killing people is normally illegal, in war it's a bit legal (I presume, since both sides are flinging high explosives at each other and very few get tried for war crimes) but how do you know which side of that law you are on if nobody has declared war?.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
How? His conviction was overturned and downgraded after a public campagin.MattFalle said:
I think the Alexander Blackman case may prove you wrong.TheBigBean said:
Unaccpectable killing is what the other side does.monkimark said:Can someone explain to me in simple terms what kind of killing is acceptable in a war situation.
I suspect that the answer is more complex than can be explained to me while I finish my sandwich but the way i see it, killing people is normally illegal, in war it's a bit legal (I presume, since both sides are flinging high explosives at each other and very few get tried for war crimes) but how do you know which side of that law you are on if nobody has declared war?0 -
I'm suggesting that the likes of the CCP don't worry about excuses. They just do what suits them.First.Aspect said:
Of course they don't need to be outraged. This is about having an excuse for gaining economic benefit by buying cheap oil fro Russia and selling Russia useful things like electronics. Right now China are sort of staying out of it, but it's economically beneficial for them at some stage not to.rjsterry said:
Think it's a bit of a stretch to think that a government like the CCP would be so outraged by one questionable trial of a low rank Russian soldier that they materially change their conditional support of Russia.First.Aspect said:
It was a show trial. Real murder cases take months and years to come to court. Real war crimes trials take years and decades.MattFalle said:They captured a war criminal who confessed to his crime.
Its an open legal trial
What do you want them to do? Take him out the back and slot him?
Did that guy have any option but to confess? Was he incentivized to confess? Did he get an effective defence? Or did the same body appoint both the prosecution and defence attorney?
Is he even a Russian soldier?
Was that woman a widow?
No matter how much bluster you have MF, you actually haven't got a clue either. And if I can spin this as something that looks like a breach of the Geneva Convention, I'm pretty sure Chinese state media can manage as well.
There are leaders of countries with combined poulations of several billion who don't need much excuse to either not side with the west, or side against the west.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It's not just China though - it's military support from the USA, it's European countries not using Russian energy etc
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Yup. We've already had one dickhead GOP senator questioning the value of trying to preserve world economic and strategic order. And Trumpski is lurking behind the GOP with his whole arm up McConnells back... side.DeVlaeminck said:It's not just China though - it's military support from the USA, it's European countries not using Russian energy etc
Hungary is doing what it can to carry on looking east, Turkey is equivocating now. India seems not to care about a war half a world away already. And China is balancing a huge discount opportunity against value of trade with the west. It is a fine balance because the west can't sanction everyone.0 -
Don't think that is likely.DeVlaeminck said:It's not just China though - it's military support from the USA, it's European countries not using Russian energy etc
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
.0
-
Atrested, prosecuted, slung out, no pension, conviction.TheBigBean said:
How? His conviction was overturned and downgraded after a public campagin.MattFalle said:
I think the Alexander Blackman case may prove you wrong.TheBigBean said:
Unaccpectable killing is what the other side does.monkimark said:Can someone explain to me in simple terms what kind of killing is acceptable in a war situation.
I suspect that the answer is more complex than can be explained to me while I finish my sandwich but the way i see it, killing people is normally illegal, in war it's a bit legal (I presume, since both sides are flinging high explosives at each other and very few get tried for war crimes) but how do you know which side of that law you are on if nobody has declared war?
The public broo ha ha was a losd ofbollox generated by the daily heil.
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0
