re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

quote:

---

I would damn near guarantee that happened over the course of 20 years.

---

How many tours did you have over there? I would assume several since you seem so certain the US purposefully targeted civilians.

quote:

---

I would also say that it's highly likely that the Ukrainians are using these residential areas as operational areas either intentionally or just as a byproduct of where the Russians are moving. I don't know why y'all act as if that's nowhere in the realm of possibilities.

---

Lol I posted this sentiment yesterday when talking about the POW video. Even pointed to a particular instance involving the shopping mall where you can see military vehicles parked underneath right before the Russians hit it. Even said the Ukrainians shooting POWs is barbaric and anyone involved should face punishment.

But because I said that a case of mistaken identity involving US forces means I've swallowed the Ukrainian propaganda whole and have somehow absolved them, and US forces apparently, from any wrongdoing.

Again, some of y'all are really stretching.

Um...fire bombing Tokyo and carpet bombing European cities ?

quote:

---

Um...fire bombing Tokyo and carpet bombing European cities ?

---

I'm sure we haven't improved at all as a civilization in the past 80 years.

quote:

---

Um...fire bombing Tokyo and carpet bombing European cities ?

---

In the post World war environment, a series of treaties governing the laws of war were adopted starting in 1949.

These Geneva Conventions would come into force, in no small part, because of a general reaction against the practices of the Second World War. Although the Fourth Geneva Convention attempted to erect some legal defenses for civilians in time of war, the bulk of the Fourth Convention devoted to explicating civilian rights in occupied territories, and no explicit attention is paid to the problems of bombardment.[31]

In 1977, Protocol I was adopted as an amendment to the Geneva Conventions, prohibiting the deliberate or indiscriminate attack of civilians and civilian objects, even if the area contained military objectives, and the attacking force must take precautions and steps to spare the lives of civilians and civilian objects as possible. However, forces occupying near densely populated areas must avoid locating military objectives near or in densely populated areas and endeavor to remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives. Failure to do so would cause a higher civilian death toll resulting from bombardment by the attacking force and the defenders would be held responsible, even criminally liable, for these deaths. This issue was addressed because drafters of Protocol I pointed out historical examples such as Japan in World War II who often dispersed legitimate military and industrial targets (almost two-thirds of production was from small factories of thirty or fewer persons or in wooden homes, which were clustered around the factories) throughout urban areas in many of its cities either with the sole purpose of preventing enemy forces from bombing these targets or using its civilian casualties caused by enemy bombardment as propaganda value against the enemy. This move made Japan vulnerable to area bombardment and the U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF) adopted a policy of carpetbombing which destroyed 69 Japanese cities with either incendiary bombs or atomic bombs, with the deaths of 381,000-500,000 Japanese people.[32][33][34][35]

However, Protocol I also states that locating military objectives near civilians "shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians." (Article 51, Para 8)[36]

The International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion in July 1996 on the Legality of the Threat Or Use Of Nuclear Weapons. The court ruled that "[t]here is in neither customary nor international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons." However, by a split vote, it also found that "[t]he threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict." The Court stated that it could not definitively conclude whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of the state would be at stake.[37]

quote:

---

We're talking about indiscriminate shelling of residential areas and/or shooting POWs in the legs and you post a case of mistaken identity from an attack helicopter?

---

"Mistaken identity" Yea, ok. Even if it was "mistaken" that makes it okie dokie?

I posted a war crime committed against civilians and children of a sovereign country (on the other side of the planet from the aggressor lol). There are many, many other instances.

Some of you are in desperate need of a "Are we the baddies?" moment.

quote:

---

technically that predates Arts. 13 & 32 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

---

Technically, that doesn't negate that his reply to

quote:

---

You're more than welcome to find an instance of America knowingly and purposely shelling civilians.

---

was extremely accurate.

So with Russia's young men dying off and not reproducing do the Mormons see an opportunity to take over the country and restart the multiple wives program? If I was supreme leader of that church that's what I'd do.

quote:

---

Um...fire bombing Tokyo and carpet bombing European cities ?

---

holy shite that happened within the last 20 years?

or did you just casually pop in here and barely fricking read anything?