Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

[King Arts]

What country is responsible for Charlie Hebdo so that France can bomb it in return?
The comparison to usual terrorism are fucking delusional on account of the fact that Ukraine and Russia are in open conventional warfare, and so you may as well call it covert ops by countries at war. In this case you can't be outraged that it's a dastardly act of war committed in peace, nor that the target was random civilians who did nothing to deserve it (actual government propagandist was the target).

Murder of Lee Rigby - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

What about this? Is this justified? Britain frequently attacks Muslim nations you could say there is an undeclared war yet people on the right whine and cry about this even though this incident did not touch a civilian but a soldier who fought on behalf of England and possibly killed people.

Muslims" are not a state actor. If Iran, Yemen, Libya, Lebanon or whatever want to declare war on NATO and then send covert ops teams there, it would be a different story.

But western nations have attacked African and middle eastern nations without official declarations of war.

 

[Marduk]

Murder of Lee Rigby - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

What about this? Is this justified? Britain frequently attacks Muslim nations you could say there is an undeclared war yet people on the right whine and cry about this even though this incident did not touch a civilian but a soldier who fought on behalf of England and possibly killed people.

Did this guy advocate for war crimes against "Muslim nations"?
Does Britain get to bomb a Muslim nation of choice in retaliation for this act of war?
The weird religious collectivism you are applying to international politics is something that strays away from all practice of international relations, so don't be surprised no one in charge gives a damn about its implications, i'm pretty sure the leaders of countries like Egypt, Indonesia or Bangladesh do not want to join any quarrels western countries may have with Syria, Iran or Libya as allies of the latter, and if they wanted to, they would have, and suffered relevant consequences.

It works the other direction too - USA went to war against Afghanistan after 9/11, not against all "Muslim world", even if Osama and company claimed to act in the name of the latter.

As far as law of war goes, there is a major difference between state actors and some random dude who decides that he's acting in the name of his beliefs.

Speaking of, Tatarsky was also a former separatist fighter and a traitor to Ukraine by citizenship at that.

But western nations have attacked African and middle eastern nations without official declarations of war.

But war was started by other equally understood events.
Still, was such a war ongoing then, and was the guy who did it at least a citizen of such?
From what i've seen one was actually a convert from Christianity, and the other was Kenyan.

 

[King Arts]

Let's be honest, absolutely everyone does kill enemy propagandists if they get their hands on them. Russians have killed Ukrainian civilians for much less. So morally at least, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Legally, i'll quote someone who knows such details better:

Law and the killing of a Russian propagandist: Some Q & A

Can a person identified as a journalist or political commentator who nevertheless spreads hateful propaganda and disinformation be legally targeted in war? That is one of many questions to be cons…

sites.duke.edu

Long story short, it's controversial, but a lot of serious legal authorities would say that a propagandist gets edgy enough, he could be considered a legitimate target, and this guy definitely did go that far, which would also fit with the standard including Nazi and Islamist propagandists.

Umm your article seems to support my position.

As unsatisfying as it may be to some readers, the law seems to be that in order to turn a propagandizing civilian person or object into a legitimate target, it is necessary to show such person or object is producing substantial and direct incitement to commit specific, serious, and unlawful "violence" that is expected to occur relatively close in time.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

I hope it's just the start of a trend; pro-invasion Russian media and gov personalities who cheer on the invasion getting blown up at home is a good way to make sure they know there is no safe place for them, even in their home country.

First Dugin's hellspawn, now said hellspawns friend, and hopefully soon Putin himself.

terrorism is good when we do it

 

[Marduk]

Umm your article seems to support my position.

As unsatisfying as it may be to some readers, the law seems to be that in order to turn a propagandizing civilian person or object into a legitimate target, it is necessary to show such person or object is producing substantial and direct incitement to commit specific, serious, and unlawful "violence" that is expected to occur relatively close in time.

Does it?
Just because you didn't go looking through what kind of propaganda did this guy make doesn't mean he did nothing wrong, how can you know if you didn't check?

The liquidation of Vladlen Tatarskyi: the last seconds of the propagandist's life were shown

The Internet published a video of the liquidation of Vladlen Tatarskyi, a collaborator and propagandist of the Russian Federation, who called on Russia to commit genocide against Ukrainians and threatened to "kill and rob everyone." The footage shows him being handed a statuette with explosives.

www.txtreport.com

The Internet published a video of the liquidation of Vladlen Tatarskyi, a collaborator and propagandist of the Russian Federation, who called on Russia to commit genocide against Ukrainians and threatened to "kill and rob everyone." The footage shows him being handed a statuette with explosives. 

"substantial and direct incitement to commit specific, serious, and unlawful "violence" that is expected to occur relatively close in time"?
Inciting genocide and war crimes would do it i think.

 

[ATP]

lesson of history is that its better to kill every single communist then to let them take control over your society.

Far fewer people die that way.

Yep.If we killed Lenin and all his supporters in 1917,it would be less then 100.000KIA.Even if twice as much died innocent,it is still nothing comparing to number of communism victims.
And,even worst,what they did with survivors.
Sowki/soviet people/ are creatures who would always serv stronger/like opportunists/ but only those who try create hell on Earth.
Those who fight for normal reasons - not so,and those who really fight for humans...soveks would kill them for free.

Becouse they not only must be enslaved,but also enslave others.
Scouring of Shire in LOTR in reality was communist state made there.

 

[ATP]

terrorism is good when we do it

Dugina was killed by kgb,her friend probably also.And putin would be killed by kgb,too.
And then,USA would gave Ukraine and Poland to new progressive leader from kgb...who would do the same what putin did,but smarter.

I hope,that putin manage survive at least to 2024 and Republicans win - they COULD not toss us under kgb.Or demand something.
Democrats would do that for free.

 

[AmosTrask]

Dugina was killed by kgb,her friend probably also.And putin would be killed by kgb,too.
And then,USA would gave Ukraine and Poland to new progressive leader from kgb...who would do the same what putin did,but smarter.

I hope,that putin manage survive at least to 2024 and Republicans win - they COULD not toss us under kgb.Or demand something.
Democrats would do that for free.

Trump is campaigning on reducing support to Ukraine amigo. You are cheering the wrong side. Although both sides are crazy in their own ways

 

[mrttao]

Long story short, it's controversial, but a lot of serious legal authorities would say that a propagandist gets edgy enough, he could be considered a legitimate target, and this guy definitely did go that far, which would also fit with the standard including Nazi and Islamist propagandists.

> Yes you can murder reporters
> But only if we declare that they are evil reporters
> Good reporters like us are untouchable
> We are the only one who get to declare which reporters are evil and which are good.

lel. the sheer myopia

 

[Marduk]

> Yes you can murder reporters
> But only if we declare that they are evil reporters
> Good reporters like us are untouchable
> We are the only one who get to declare which reporters are evil and which are good.

lel. the sheer myopia

What else do you propose? Who else even cares about killing reporters at all to begin with? Chicoms? Islamists?
The West and company are practically the only ones who even consider that a rule, who else is supposed to interpret it for the sake of fairness ? What fairness?

 

[mrttao]

What else do you propose?

I propose
1. all sides should kill enemy propagandists.
2. everyone should point and laugh at propagandists (the so called reporters) for being so stupid and making such hypocritical arguments

 

[King Arts]

What else do you propose? Who else even cares about killing reporters at all to begin with? Chicoms? Islamists?
The West and company are practically the only ones who even consider that a rule, who else is supposed to interpret it for the sake of fairness ? What fairness?

What do you mean? The Russians and Chinese use the same arguments they say it’s bad when their propaganda people die. I don’t talk to them so I don’t hear them say they should kill Western journalists but they are people so I’d assume just like us some of them say that.

I’m just here calling out hypocrisy, if your position is fuck morality we do what is good for us no matter if it’s evil or good I would understand and it would not be hypocritical. But the west does not do that usually except for some conservatives.

 

[Marduk]

What do you mean? The Russians and Chinese use the same arguments they say it’s bad when their propaganda people die. I don’t talk to them so I don’t hear them say they should kill Western journalists but they are people so I’d assume just like us some of them say that.

They don't say it and make rules for what's bad enough to justify killing them, nevermind wait for a war to do it, they just make it happen if they feel like it.

I’m just here calling out hypocrisy, if your position is fuck morality we do what is good for us no matter if it’s evil or good I would understand and it would not be hypocritical. But the west does not do that usually except for some conservatives.

But which morality, ours or theirs?
Regardless, we were discussing international law of war, for all that's worth, not morality.

 

[mrttao]

But which morality, ours or theirs?
Regardless, we were discussing international law of war, for all that's worth, not morality.

He is very explicit. when he says morality he means
"nobody on any side should kill civilians. propagandists are civilians"

He is saying that the moral thing is if liberal world order, china, russia, muslims, and everyone else stopped killing civilians like propagandists.

He is also saying that you are a hypocrite for saying "its ok to kill theirs, but wrong to kill ours*".

* "ours" means liberal world order. those who want you dead, your children raped and brainwashed, and they think it is funny. because you are an alleged conservative, who for some reason is siding with the liberal world order because MSM said so

 

[Marduk]

He is very explicit. when he says morality he means
"nobody on any side should kill civilians. propagandists are civilians"

Whose morality is that? It doesn't seem any society thinks that is a rule really, even those closest to this have exceptions as quoted above, and most don't care at all.
His personal morality, well, why should anyone else care.

He is saying that the moral thing is if liberal world order, china, russia, muslims, and everyone else stopped killing civilians like propagandists.

As above, no one thinks that, nor considers him a moral authority.

He is also saying that you are a hypocrite for saying "its ok to kill theirs, but wrong to kill ours*".

How is it hypocrisy to not support a standard of conduct more restrictive than any civilization's existing standard?

* "ours" means liberal world order. those who want you dead, your children raped and brainwashed, and they think it is funny. because you are an alleged conservative, who for some reason is siding with the liberal world order because MSM said so

If you mean the leftist side of western civilization, that's a particularly poor example to bring up if you want to argue propagandists shouldn't be a target in a war regardless of how extreme they are in their propaganda. The leftists don't care about how high your standards of conduct are any more than the others, they will still ruin you if they think they can get away with it.

 

[mrttao]

Whose morality is that?

it is King Arts's morality. which is why I said he is very explicit
this is basic reading 101

It doesn't seem any society thinks that is a rule really

Correct.
All sides seem to think that "its ok to kill theirs, and bad to kill ours"
This is known as hypocrisy. which some people have called out as hypocrisy.

You claiming that "all societies are hypocrite so its ok for me to be one" is a whataboutism fallacy

You are still a hypocrite even if hypocrisy is the norm.

 

[mrttao]

Addendum. While societies clearly favor a hypocritical "it is ok when we do it, not when they do it".

Officially they signed international treaties that condemn it universally.

How does international humanitarian law protect journalists in armed-conflict situations?

Media professionals are increasingly at risk of being wounded, killed, detained or kidnapped while reporting in armed-conflict situations. Robin Geiss, an ICRC legal expert, talks about the protection to which they, as civilians not taking part in the fighting, are entitled under international...

www.icrc.org

However, if one reads these provisions in conjunction with other humanitarian rules, it is clear that the protection under existing law is quite comprehensive. Most importantly, Article 79 of Additional Protocol I provides that journalists are entitled to all rights and protections granted to civilians in international armed conflicts. The same holds true in non-international armed conflicts by virtue of customary international law ( Rule 34 of the ICRC's Customary Law Study ).

Thus, in order to perceive the full scope of protection granted to journalists under humanitarian law one simply has to substitute the word " civilian " as it is used throughout the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols with the word " journalist. "

propagandists aka journalists are explicitly considered civilians according to geneva convention.

So this is a clear case of "laws for thee but not for me"

 

[Marduk]

it is King Arts's morality. which is why I said he is very explicit
this is basic reading 101

Correct.
All sides seem to think that "its ok to kill theirs, and bad to kill ours"
This is known as hypocrisy. which some people have called out as hypocrisy.

Is not meeting the arbitrary standard of some guy on the internet hypocrisy?
Is self-interest hypocrisy?

You claiming that "all societies are hypocrite so its ok for me to be one" is a whataboutism fallacy

You are still a hypocrite even if hypocrisy is the norm.

Why would it be not ok if everyone is and they won't stop being nor give any other favor to you if you choose to not be?
And again, is self-interest hypocrisy?

Addendum. While societies clearly favor a hypocritical "it is ok when we do it, not when they do it".

Officially they signed international treaties that condemn it universally.

How does international humanitarian law protect journalists in armed-conflict situations?

Media professionals are increasingly at risk of being wounded, killed, detained or kidnapped while reporting in armed-conflict situations. Robin Geiss, an ICRC legal expert, talks about the protection to which they, as civilians not taking part in the fighting, are entitled under international...

www.icrc.org

propagandists aka journalists are explicitly considered civilians according to geneva convention.

So this is a clear case of "laws for thee but not for me"

So again, are we talking law (and international law at that) or morality? You can't use those interchangeably.
If we are talking law, i've found a guy better versed in that kind of stuff explain that there can be exceptions if the propagandists advocate for violation of said law, so there is that.

 

[mrttao]

Is not meeting the arbitrary standard of some guy on the internet hypocrisy?
Is self-interest hypocrisy?

facepalm.
are you trolling me? I literally pointed out what the hypocrisy part is.
Which is "it is ok for me to do it, but bad when others do the exact same thing to me"
This is the textbook definition of hypocrisy.

Why would it be not ok if everyone is and they won't stop being nor give any other favor to you if you choose to not be?

I said it is ok for everyone.
King Arts said he respects the fact I am not a hypocrite. Even though he disagrees with me morally.

You are the one proposing it is ok when your side does it, but bad when the other side does it.

So again, are we talking law (and international law at that) or morality? You can't use those interchangeably.

Reading comprension.

Law is not morality, I explicitly stated that I personally think this law is wrong. And that it is moral for all sides to target propagandists.

HOWEVER, law can be indicative of what society at large believes.
You explicitly claimed that no society on earth agrees with @King Arts definition of morality

Whose morality is that? It doesn't seem any society thinks that is a rule really

^ You literally said the above to king arts in reply to him stating that morality = geneva convention.

You are not only a hypocrite for saying it is ok for your side to break the geneva convention but a war crime when the other side does the exact same thing.

But you are also deluded if you think that no society in existence believes that the rules of the geneva convention are representatives of morality.

 

[mrttao]

TLDR the last page of arguments:

King Arts: The moral thing to do is to follow the geneva convention.
Saying it is ok for me to break it, but not for others, is hypocrisy

Me: I think the geneva convention is wrong on this from a moral perspective
Agreed about the hypocrisy

Marduk: It is perfectly moral for my side to break the geneva convension and a war crime when the other side breaks the exact same statuette of the geneva convension.
I am not a hypocrite because everyone is doing it.
no society on earth believes the geneva convension is right about morality. these are just king arts' personal opinion.