Ukraine Conflict - Das Himmelfahrtskommando

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

2 hours ago, 213374U said:

what is the agenda?

The excusing of atrocity by Ukrainian forces in this conflict specifically and "Western" forces historically generally. In this case it's an inversion of the usual, because usually the US (or an ally) takes the role of invader.

Just come out and say you believe your enemies are ontologically evil and no act against them is wrong. It's more honest than trying to conform supposed principles to real life actions.

[Malcador]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/roman-abramovich-and-ukrainian-peace-negotiators-suffer-symptoms-of-suspected-poisoning-11648480493

Seems a strange thing to do. 

[213374U]

2 hours ago, Chilloutman said:

No not at all, I condemn those actions fully. I am just pointing out that Russia is so cowardly they can't even declare war properly and I am asking question if rules of war in that case apply, thats all. Not sure what agenda you mean.

I am also sure IF Ukraine 'win' they will punish such actions if proven true. Even Ukraine spokesmen stated that those will be punished. (albeit might be just some scapegoats) because they want to maintain their image in western eyes. I doubt you can say same for Russian side of things

Sadly, whether, and the extent to which, the laws of war apply will be decided, ultimately, by who is the victor. As always. A crime is a crime is a crime, regardless of qualifiers or perpetrator. Which is, essentially, what people seem to have a hard time accepting.

 

2 hours ago, bugarup said:

Curious how's there is sovietistan in your list, but no russia, when putler pretty openly wants to mold it into new sovietistan. Unless you criticized sovietistan for being, I dunno, not enough of a corrupt, hypocritic, oppressive ****hole built on lies and fear? 

I'm sorry. Who are you and why do you think you get to set the bar for whether one is sufficiently critical of <country>?

Once again: if you say I'm not sufficiently critical of Russia, I can just as easily say that you are not sufficiently critical of the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia or any number of countries that have been or are currently aggressors. My posting history is there for anyone to check, and I have previously stated that Russia should answer for starting a war. Where, oh where, is your righteous indignation for brown people dying in previous (and current) conflicts, hmm? I don't think you are sufficiently critical of <country>, and therefore your arguments are suspect. See how dumb this is yet?

Edited March 28, 2022 by 213374U

[Chilloutman]

4 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Sadly, whether and the extent to which the laws of war apply will be decided, ultimately, by who is the victor. As always. A crime is a crime is a crime, regardless of qualifiers or perpetrator. Which is, essentially, what people seem to have a hard time accepting.

Please don't generalize if you are quote me or replying to me. I am not people. Don't project opinions of others(or yours) on me. I did not excused any crimes at all in this whole thread nor anywhere else. Its very hard to discuss anything if you are projecting

[213374U]

1 minute ago, Chilloutman said:

Please don't generalize if you are quote me or replying to me. I am not people. Don't project opinions of others(or yours) on me. I did not excused any crimes at all in this whole thread nor anywhere else. Its very hard to discuss anything if you are projecting

Ah yes, of course. You were posing a completely honest and good faith question of whether the laws of war apply in a war even though the advisor to the president of Ukraine has made it a pretty clear that they do. You weren't at all being cynical and suggesting that, since Russia hasn't actually formally declared war, their soldiers aren't entitled to POW protection.

Any other intellectually dishonest bull**** you'd want me to address?

[Chilloutman]

and here is other side of POW torture:

 

who knows where is the truth

[Chilloutman]

5 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Ah yes, of course. You were posing a completely honest and good faith question of whether the laws of war apply in a war even though the advisor to the president of Ukraine has made it a pretty clear that they do. You weren't at all being cynical and suggesting that, since Russia hasn't actually formally declared war, their soldiers aren't entitled to POW protection.

Any other intellectually dishonest bull**** you'd want me to address?

look, you are moderator so please calm down. Yes I jested that Russia is not in war because they did not declare war and them themselves are refusing to call it a war. In sentence right before it I condemned all atrocities caused by either side so I really don't see your point. Again you are projecting your frustrations on me for some reason.

 

Edit: before you jump the gun, it was in next post

Edited March 28, 2022 by Chilloutman

[pmp10]

57 minutes ago, Malcador said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/roman-abramovich-and-ukrainian-peace-negotiators-suffer-symptoms-of-suspected-poisoning-11648480493

Seems a strange thing to do. 

Not necessarily.
This was on 1st week of war and the meeting took place in Ukrainian territory.
That's a powerful message, one that likely dissuaded any oligarch from interfering in war matters.

Edited March 28, 2022 by pmp10

[Malcador]

Mariupol, well or what's left of it, fallen or close to it seems - https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/28/europe/mariupol-mayor-ukraine-occupiers-intl/index.html

[213374U]

5 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

look, you are moderator so please calm down. Yes I jested that Russia is not in war because they did not declare war and them themselves are refusing to call it a war. In sentence right before it I condemned all atrocities caused by either side so I really don't see your point. Again you are projecting your frustrations on me for some reason.

Edit: before you jump the gun, it was in next post

My moderator status has little bearing as I'm posting in the topic like any other user. As always, if you believe a moderator is misbehaving or acting unfairly, you are welcome to take it up with Fionavar.

I am calm, though I'm aware that tone doesn't convey well in text. I apologize if I came across as aggressive or confrontational. Still, the observation goes both ways -- you cannot throw your hands in horror at the misdeeds of one and joke on the next when discussing the other's and not expect the conversation to go nowhere fast.

As for the leaked document, I wouldn't put it past them, though I don't think the video in question is staged. Even if those were blanks, they'd still do serious damage at that distance.

[bugarup]

36 minutes ago, 213374U said:

I'm sorry. Who are you and why do you think you get to set the bar for whether one is sufficiently critical of <country>?

Once again: if you say I'm not sufficiently critical of Russia, I can just as easily say that you are not sufficiently critical of the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia or any number of countries that have been or are currently aggressors. My posting history is there for anyone to check, and I have previously stated that Russia should answer for starting a war. Where, oh where, is your righteous indignation for brown people dying in previous (and current) conflicts, hmm? I don't think you are sufficiently critical of <country>, and therefore your arguments are suspect. See how dumb this is yet?

Eh? I wasn't righteously indignated, just moderately curious, not enough to pore through your post history though, and it's definitely not my intention to tell strangers on internet what they should root for.

Also, now I'm kind of curious about another thing - this "Where, oh where, is your righteous indignation for brown people dying in previous (and current) conflicts, hmm? ". Like, are you calling the "You have no right to care about issue X because you do not care about issue Y" logical fallacy stupid or are you actually invoking it? I really cannot tell.

[rjshae]

Has there ever been a war where no war crimes were not committed? I suspect they are few and far between. In the end it's more a matter of intent (and extent).

[Chilloutman]

3 minutes ago, 213374U said:

My moderator status has little bearing as I'm posting in the topic like any other user. As always, if you believe a moderator is misbehaving or acting unfairly, you are welcome to take it up with Fionavar.

I am calm, though I'm aware that tone doesn't convey well in text. I apologize if I came across as aggressive or confrontational. Still, the observation goes both ways -- you cannot throw your hands in horror at the misdeeds of one and joke on the next when discussing the other's and not expect the conversation to go nowhere fast.

As for the leaked document, I wouldn't put it past them, though I don't think the video in question is staged. Even if those were blanks, they'd still do serious damage at that distance.

I don't feel any of my posts were overly dramatic in either way and I really am not intended to 'snitch' on anyone. I am just pointing out that you don't seem calm when forum censor function censor actual moderator. As we should not discuss each other here I just ask you to not project opinions of other (presumed I guess) on me, thats all

[BruceVC]

2 minutes ago, rjshae said:

Has there ever been a war where no war crimes were not committed? I suspect they are few and far between. In the end it's more a matter of intent (and extent).

Vietnam 

[Darkpriest]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/mariupol-mayor-orders-complete-evacuation-city-now-russian-hands-ukraine-says-its

[rjshae]

45 minutes ago, 213374U said:

My moderator status has little bearing as I'm posting in the topic like any other user. As always, if you believe a moderator is misbehaving or acting unfairly, you are welcome to take it up with Fionavar.

I am calm, though I'm aware that tone doesn't convey well in text. I apologize if I came across as aggressive or confrontational. Still, the observation goes both ways -- you cannot throw your hands in horror at the misdeeds of one and joke on the next when discussing the other's and not expect the conversation to go nowhere fast.

As for the leaked document, I wouldn't put it past them, though I don't think the video in question is staged. Even if those were blanks, they'd still do serious damage at that distance.

Well the drawback for everybody else is nobody can block your response, regardless of how disagreeable your position may be. One expects a certain level of discretion from a moderator.

Edited March 28, 2022 by rjshae

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, rjshae said:

Has there ever been a war where no war crimes were not committed? I suspect they are few and far between. In the end it's more a matter of intent (and extent).

Intent as to what?

[213374U]

1 hour ago, bugarup said:

Also, now I'm kind of curious about another thing - this "Where, oh where, is your righteous indignation for brown people dying in previous (and current) conflicts, hmm? ". Like, are you calling the "You have no right to care about issue X because you do not care about issue Y" logical fallacy stupid or are you actually invoking it? I really cannot tell.

You are creating an arbitrary divide (issue X and issue Y), where it's really one and the same issue -- civilians killed in wars of aggression. If you view it differently based on who caused it, it's a textbook application of double standards. Remember: it's you who's calling into question the character of someone else.

The original contention was that my "obvious anti-Americanism" somehow precludes my opinions having merit, to which you added your own observation that I'm seemingly not critical enough of (modern) Russia. There's an obvious implication of bad faith there, but it's an argument that can be turned against anyone because the target is required to meet some arbitrary standard set by the attacker. Because that's what it is, a personal attack.

 

1 hour ago, Chilloutman said:

I am just pointing out that you don't seem calm when forum censor function censor actual moderator.

You mean the word filter? I've been using profanity (and getting censored by the forum software) frequently, even after being deputized. Think nothing of it. The rule isn't "no profanity", it's "no circumventing the word filter". But again, apologies if the wording made it look like I was angry.

 

55 minutes ago, rjshae said:

Well the drawback for everybody else is nobody can block your response, regardless of how disagreeable your position may be. One expects a certain level of discretion from a moderator.

That expectation is not unreasonable. Thankfully I'm not the only moderator and you can rest assured that others will step in if it's deemed that I'm not being discreet enough.

As for blocking, you are absolutely right. It's one drawback of having volunteer moderators. If being exposed to opinions you consider disagreeable is unacceptable, I can offer no effective solution. And I'm serious, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the Community Manager if you believe there's a problem or a better way of doing things.

[rjshae]

52 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Intent as to what?

Deliberate intent on the part of the high command or political leadership to, for example, commit violations of the Geneva convention on civilians as a tool for victory.

[rjshae]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Vietnam 

I consider myself fortunate in missing that debacle, as the draft ended a year before I reached the age of eligibility. Honestly, I'm not sure my mind would have handled it well, all things considered.

[Gfted1]

1 hour ago, rjshae said:

Well the drawback for everybody else is nobody can block your response, regardless of how disagreeable your position may be. One expects a certain level of discretion from a moderator.

You should ask @Bartimaeus for his forum poster-busting eraser software. Never be subjected to disagreeable posts again!

[Sarex]

7 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

You should ask @Bartimaeus for his forum poster-busting eraser software. Never be subjected to disagreeable posts again!

Then what would I read on this forum?

[Gfted1]

Hes got a sweet script running that not only removes disagreeable posters, but also removes them from quote blocks. Now nobody can even complain about that, unless they want to.  

[kanisatha]

4 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

And so it begins... 

When you have cut all the ties, aside of one sector you need, what will you do, when the other party will target that specific sector?

There is near zero leverage left, when the politicians talk in absolutes and declared Putin a second coming of Hitler. There is also clear message, that economies will not be returning to pre-sanctions era and will look to slowly exit all economic relations in vital parts of the trade exchange. Why would Russia and Putin then care at all? You cant take more from them, when you've already frozen assets and withdrew all the business... 

On this issue I read somewhere a couple of points (from financial experts which I am certainly not). One, the contracts are already in force, so this would be a breech of the contracts which clearly specify the use of dollars or euros for the transactions. So any such requirement would effectively nullify existing contracts and new contracts would need to be negotiated. And two, European states don't have to buy rubles only from Russia's central bank. They can buy them from any source of rubles in the world, including countries such as India that may have rubles, as well as private financiers.

[BruceVC]

29 minutes ago, Sarex said:

Then what would I read on this forum?

 Besides you would never block my posts and wise words Sarex, think  of how much we have learnt from each other  since we started  meaningfully engaging over a decade ago 

Think of all the good times