Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

[Zachowon]

Except it was Ukrainians or pro Ukrainians who did that.
The west has had zero oart in these

 

[Bacle]

funny how it is a warcrime when russia assassinates someone.
but justice when liberal world order assassinates someone.

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.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Ukraine and Russia are at WAR. Basically means that assassinations and attacks against strategic assets, of which your basic propogandist is a part of, are completely justified.

 

[King Arts]

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.

Interesting terrorism is justified. Tell me Bacle how will you react when ANTIFA attacks conservative media or those who are against trans rights. Remember if it happens to you then you deserve it.

Ukraine and Russia are at WAR. Basically means that assassinations and attacks against strategic assets, of which your basic propogandist is a part of, are completely justified.

Are they now? So was the Charlie Hebdo killing justified?

 

[mrttao]

Ukraine and Russia are at WAR. Basically means that assassinations and attacks against strategic assets, of which your basic propogandist is a part of, are completely justified.

Sure, absolutely. It makes perfect sense for both sides to do assassinations.
I am just amused at the hypocrisy.
Because ya'll were very much reeeing against it when it was russia doing the assassination.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Are they now? So was the Charlie Hebdo killing justified?

Talk about your apples and oranges dude.

Sure, absolutely. It makes perfect sense for both sides to do assassinations.
I am just amused at the hypocrisy.
Because ya'll were very much reeeing against it when it was russia doing the assassination.

People will naturally cheer on their own side and decry the actions of their enemies. Trick is recognizing that hypocrisy in yourself when it happens. It's the rare person that actually can do it. From the outside, it's a lot easier to see...especially when it's not people you know that are dying.

 

[Bacle]

 

[ATP]

Yes the article is biased, because I would not call this sex slavery and this is just using catch phrases. It also is not actually a war crime. As for it being rape that is a bit more complicated you could argue either way in that specefic case I'd lean towards yes, however I don't like classifying anything except violent sex against someone's will or taking advantage of someone when they are unconscious and literally can't resist as rape. It should still be illegal though. However you are naieve if you think that it's just this one general and the Russian army is squeeky clean otherwise. Again where there is smoke there is fire, the Russian army is NOTORIOUS for many people accusing them of actual forcible rape as opposed to merely coercive sex, this is actually less serious than normal rape(it's still terrible I'm not minimizing it) why would there be a greater amount of violent rape as opposed to abuse of authority? The Russian army is probably filled with a large part of violent rape, and an EVEN larger ammount of coercive sex(this threatening someone with adverse action in exchange for sex), and an even larger ammount of corrupt sex( basically offering special favors in return for sex/prostitution)

As for the people you are using as proof of being tricked?
Bacle is a known anti Russian to a silly degree. He will latch on anything that shows Russia is the bad guy even if it make sense or it does not.
ATP believes that Russia died with the Soviet Union, the truth is that there was not that big of a change in how the Soviets acted and the empire acted. The only big differance was that the Soviets in the early years were hostile to Christianity internally. But later they relented, and after communism fell there was no more oppression. ATP is mistaken about the Russian genocide for the most part Russians still exist.
The only person who you can point to who might be tricked is Cherico, but that's just because he has a good heart/ is naeive by saying it's a failure of civilization because it's not I've said before coercive sex acts are common in almost every organization with a hierarchy it's part of civilization. If your boss has power over you and makes a pass towards you it puts you in a bad spot. Even if they won't actually use their power to punish you for refusing you still will be worried they will. It's a bad part of society but humans are imperfect as long as imperfect humans have authority over others sometimes there will be abuse of power. Only way it will end is when God fixes the world and brings his kingdom here.

No,i knew that Russia was murdered by soviets,and what we have now are postsoviets.
If you belive,that soviet and Russia was the same,read Letters from Russia De coustine from 1839.
Old gentry then have honour,and serfs loved their land.
In soviet union? soviet officers as kind ot custom asked polish officers from Home Army for meeting giving their word of honour,that they would be safe.Polish officers ended in mass graves or gulags.
RUSSIAN OFFICER WOULD NEVER BREAK HIS WORD.And if he did so,he would schoot himself 5 minutes later.

soviets from kolchoz do not care about their land,and tried run to cities.When serfs would never abadonn land if they could have it.

Later was even worst - after 1863 serfs were liberated by tsar.Soviets turned free farmers into serfs again and forbid them from abadonning their kolchoz.
After 1905 they have economical reforms which would turn Russia into 1th world economy by now - if USA do not send Trocky there.

Russia was polish sworn enemy - but they have their virtues,and could take over Europe and maybe world if soviets do not murdered them.

So,do not compare them to soviet shit.Nobody except commies deserved it.

 

[King Arts]

Talk about your apples and oranges dude.

People will naturally cheer on their own side and decry the actions of their enemies. Trick is recognizing that hypocrisy in yourself when it happens. It's the rare person that actually can do it. From the outside, it's a lot easier to see...especially when it's not people you know that are dying.

What is the differance, they spread negative messages about Islam? Are you saying Charlie Hebdo is immune because of "satire" Then we can also point to killed Western journalists, is that justified to you after all they are the enemy media?(To the other side)

Here is the thing for something in war to be justified it can't be partisan you can't say it's good to kill an enemy soldier but morally bad when an enemy soldier kills your soldier.

What you said by saying it's "justified" is very dangerous because you are saying that killing civilians is ok. That applies to both sides in a war. If what you said is true then killing of media people is just as acceptable as killing the regular soldier.

 

[ATP]

funny how it is a warcrime when russia assassinates someone.
but justice when liberal world order assassinates someone.

That postsoviet was murdered by kgb.Just like Dugin doughter.
Since when kgb are part of liberal world?
kgb use to murder their own servants if they cease to be useful.

So,if somebody here serve kgb,not support kgbstan as useful idiots,please stop that.They would kill you for your faitful service.

 

[King Arts]

That postsoviet was murdered by kgb.Just like Dugin doughter.
Since when kgb are part of liberal world?
kgb use to murder their own servants if they cease to be useful.

So,if somebody here serve kgb,not support kgbstan as useful idiots,please stop that.They would kill you for your faitful service.

I actually do agree with this, I mean we don't know for sure But I'm leaning lik 60 percent that Russia/Putin did it because that Russian media guy did a story that showed the Russian army doing badly because of corruption. So I think that Putin used him as a false flag because Russian people would be made at being attacked on home soil by a terrorist attack. They would see it like Charlie Hebdo or other Islamist attacks in Europe.

There is still a 40 percent chance Ukrainian secret service did it.

 

[mrttao]

No,i knew that Russia was murdered by soviets,and what we have now are postsoviets.
If you belive,that soviet and Russia was the same,read Letters from Russia De coustine from 1839.
Old gentry then have honour,and serfs loved their land.
In soviet union? soviet officers as kind ot custom asked polish officers from Home Army for meeting giving their word of honour,that they would be safe.Polish officers ended in mass graves or gulags.
RUSSIAN OFFICER WOULD NEVER BREAK HIS WORD.And if he did so,he would schoot himself 5 minutes later.

soviets from kolchoz do not care about their land,and tried run to cities.When serfs would never abadonn land if they could have it.

Later was even worst - after 1863 serfs were liberated by tsar.Soviets turned free farmers into serfs again and forbid them from abadonning their kolchoz.
After 1905 they have economical reforms which would turn Russia into 1th world economy by now - if USA do not send Trocky there.

Russia was polish sworn enemy - but they have their virtues,and could take over Europe and maybe world if soviets do not murdered them.

So,do not compare them to soviet shit.Nobody except commies deserved it.

People really don't get that, communism's effects do not disappear the moment it falls.
Every good person is exterminated under communism.

To recover from that? Well that goes into nature vs nurture.
Even if you firmly believe it is all nurture... that humans genetically vary only in how their bodies look and how medicine works on them but have absolutely no genetic differences in the brain... well, even if it is all nurture, how do you repair a culture completely devoid of goodness?

And if there is even the slightest genetic component to it?
You are looking at irreparable damage to the gene pool

 

[The Whispering Monk]

What is the differance, they spread negative messages about Islam? Are you saying Charlie Hebdo is immune because of "satire" Then we can also point to killed Western journalists, is that justified to you after all they are the enemy media?(To the other side)

Was there a War with Islam? No. There was no active war with Charlie Hebdo, or his paper, and Islam. What there was and is, is a sense of entitlement regarding Islam b/c the Islamist are perfectly willing to use violence to get their way. Charlie Hebdo exposed that no other religion will get treated the same way. Frankly, that's bullcrap, and everyone needs to recognize that.

What you said by saying it's "justified" is very dangerous because you are saying that killing civilians is ok. That applies to both sides in a war. If what you said is true then killing of media people is just as acceptable as killing the regular soldier.

I never said that killing civilians was justified.

What I said was that if you are a propogandist, then you are a perfectly acceptable target in wartime. As another example, Goebbels would have been a perfect target for assassination during WWII.

 

[ATP]

People really don't get that, communism's effects do not disappear the moment it falls.
Every good person is exterminated under communism.

To recover from that? Well that goes into nature vs nurture.
Even if you firmly believe it is all nurture... that humans genetically vary only in how their bodies look and how medicine works on them but have absolutely no genetic differences in the brain... well, even if it is all nurture, how do you repair a culture completely devoid of goodness?

And if there is even the slightest genetic component to it?
You are looking at irreparable damage to the gene pool

Sadly true.People turned into soviet people would remain soviet people.
Russia was 70 years under them,and without Church and private property.
Poland only 45,and we have both.

Result - maybe 20-30% of poles become soviet people,when in Russia it is 90% or more.That is why we poles still exist,and russians not.

 

[King Arts]

Was there a War with Islam? No. There was no active war with Charlie Hebdo, or his paper, and Islam. What there was and is, is a sense of entitlement regarding Islam b/c the Islamist are perfectly willing to use violence to get their way. Charlie Hebdo exposed that no other religion will get treated the same way. Frankly, that's bullcrap, and everyone needs to recognize that.

I never said that killing civilians was justified.

What I said was that if you are a propogandist, then you are a perfectly acceptable target in wartime. As another example, Goebbels would have been a perfect target for assassination during WWII.

One could argue there was a war against Islam the west invaded Islamic nations and killed Muslims. Muslims were not looking for "special treatment" simply respect and to not have their homes bombed. Again you seem to be trying to get special exceptions for the west.

The west has it's own propagandists, if killing them is justified then Islamist terrorist are justified to kill journalists and those like them because they fulfil the role of western propagandists

You try and make this special pleading that Islam and Charlie Hebdo are not at war. But Ukraine is also not at war with this random guy.
Charlie Hebdo and other western media outlets have attacked Islam, or even encouraged aggressive policies towards Islamic nations, how is that not identical to what this guy in Russia did?

I oppose all killing of civilians I think only military and those who are the commanders of the military making strategic decisions are valid targets, I'm consistent but I'm simply asking others to also be.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

I oppose all killing of civilians I think only military and those who are the commanders of the military making strategic decisions are valid targets, I'm consistent but I'm simply asking others to also be.

Are the civilians that produce war material valid targets?

 

[Cherico]

People really don't get that, communism's effects do not disappear the moment it falls.
Every good person is exterminated under communism.

To recover from that? Well that goes into nature vs nurture.
Even if you firmly believe it is all nurture... that humans genetically vary only in how their bodies look and how medicine works on them but have absolutely no genetic differences in the brain... well, even if it is all nurture, how do you repair a culture completely devoid of goodness?

And if there is even the slightest genetic component to it?
You are looking at irreparable damage to the gene pool

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.

 

[Marduk]

Interesting terrorism is justified. Tell me Bacle how will you react when ANTIFA attacks conservative media or those who are against trans rights. Remember if it happens to you then you deserve it.

Are they now? So was the Charlie Hebdo killing justified?

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).

funny how it is a warcrime when russia assassinates someone.
but justice when liberal world order assassinates someone.

We fucking wish... War crime implies a war.
Since when is, for notable example, UK, at war with Russia?

One could argue there was a war against Islam the west invaded Islamic nations and killed Muslims. Muslims were not looking for "special treatment" simply respect and to not have their homes bombed. Again you seem to be trying to get special exceptions for the west.

"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.

You try and make this special pleading that Islam and Charlie Hebdo are not at war. But Ukraine is also not at war with this random guy.

He was not a random guy. He was working for the Russian and separatist governments in (PR) support of war effort.

I oppose all killing of civilians I think only military and those who are the commanders of the military making strategic decisions are valid targets, I'm consistent but I'm simply asking others to also be.

After WW2 people got executed for propaganda work for the government.

 

[King Arts]

Are the civilians that produce war material valid targets?

No the factories are, if civilian workers die while you are destroying the factory it’s sad, but unless you are going out of your way to cause mad casualties it’s not a war crime. In modern war you should do bombings at night when the factory workers aren’t working.

After WW2 people got executed for propaganda work for the government.

That was morally wrong, many people who were punished after ww2 was pure victors justice. Again the Germans killed propagandists in nations they occupied then were later tried for those killings and called war crimes because they were called civilians. Killing civilians who only make propaganda is wrong.

 

[Marduk]

That was morally wrong, many people who were punished after ww2 was pure victors justice. Again the Germans killed propagandists in nations they occupied then were later tried for those killings and called war crimes because they were called civilians. Killing civilians who only make propaganda is wrong.

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

Notably, also included in the examples (¶ 5.8.3.2) of activities that did not constitute direct participation is "mere sympathy or moral support for a party's cause" and "independent journalism or public advocacy (e.g., opinion journalists who write columns supporting or criticizing a State's war effort)." A footnote to that latter illustration points out:

Cf. ICTY, Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, ¶47 (Jun. 13, 2000) ("Whether the media constitutes a legitimate target group is a debatable issue. If the media is used to incite crimes, as in Rwanda, then it is a legitimate target. If it is merely disseminating propaganda to generate support for the war effort, it is not a legitimate target."). (Emphasis added.)

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.