5 ms·

Ukraine War: Civilians abducted as Russia tries to assert control

16 points by onemoresoop 5y ago

jacquesm 5y ago
There apparently isn't a war crime too low for Russia or they will practice it.
- goatsneez 5y ago
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - artem247 5y ago
    [dead]
  - yuppie_scum 5y ago
    Whtaboutism is not useful and we can see right through you.
    - goatsneez 5y ago
      Right, (we) have this new meme which is paddled now as a winning phrase of any discussion pointing out double-standard ... it is a invented nonesense and stand on no legal or moral grounds. It is a vapor on which you stand, and signals low levels of own thinking. In the English common law and in many other countries not directly based on that concept there is something called "precedent". It ensures consistency of application of written laws. There is so much to unpack that one cannot do it here. From logic point of view it fails as it neglects "and" clause. If I disagree Paul killing John AND I also disagree with Anna killing Marry. There is no OR, which is where "whataboutism" fails miserably (as it has or in its definition). But the original comment tried to compare it on a moral plane. And that is exactly what I responded to. There is no moral ground to say Russia is worse in its warcrimes than US (or any other country). A warcrime is a warcrime. There is no low and high depending to which nation we hold our allegiance to (at least not for me). Just ponder for a minute this number "Over 600,000 civilians are estimated to have died as a direct consequence of US President George W." [If you serious student of international law then I recommend this (not as a sole authority but as a data point in forming views): https://www.amazon.com/Protesting-Power-Resistance-Peace-Library/dp/0742538923 https://www.amazon.com/Protesting-Power-Resistance-Peace-Lib...] It is precisely this time that it is necessary to call out double speak, duplicity and crookedness of how international laws and morality is selectively applied. The events that are happening are far from unprecedented and that should be put into perspective to tame the manufactured emotions, especially when speaking about morality. That is justice and fairness to the current and past victims the west conveniently puts into collective blind-spot. (And "we" are wondering "why do they hate us; it must be our democracy..." -- if you are not young enough to remember those headlines).
- eveningcoffee 5y ago
  So far: rape, looting, murder, deportation, stealing, systematic destruction of hospitals and civilian buildings, using thermobaric weapons against civilian structures. Still missing: use of weapons of mass destruction.
  - cmurf 5y ago
    Let's not forget that NATO had a "flexible response" policy 40 years ago. This is of course public, that's how deterrence works. Because Russia had a conventional force advantage over NATO at that time, flexible response stated the response would be intentionally escalate to use nuclear weapons as a defense, and also why there was a no first strike policy. By expressly taking first strike off the table, it was in effect blaming Russia should nukes be used in a conflict by tying the use of nuclear weapons to Russia invading Europe with conventional forces. But the roles are now reversed. NATO's conventional force vastly exceeds that of Russia. And in effect Russia's policy is to escalate to using nuclear weapons if they get cornered by conventional warfare. This hopefully explains some of the reluctance to confront Russia directly, including no fly zones. While I think Russia (or at least Putin) deserves WW3 for what they've done, and Ukraine is already experiencing it, the problem is does the rest of the world deserve WW3? ~50% of the world being unwilling to hold Russia accountable for starting a war of aggression and asking them to stop I think is really problematic. I think it is an invitation to another world war to be neutral on such a central tenant of the U.N. Charter as Article 2(4) is, and the conclusion of Nuremberg that wars of aggression to expand borders and/or subjugate people is the supreme international crime. If it really is that big of a crime, then no country should be abstaining let alone agreeing unless they truly stand separate and outside the Charter. If that much of the world is even questioning the relevancy of the Charter so much that they will weaken it in this fashion, as China and India have - in my opinion humanity is fucked. Then we are doomed to have a WW3 at some point. The U.N. is very dysfunctional, as it is a reflection of the world. But it's the best hope we have to avoiding another world war. If we can't, and it surely would involved nuclear weapons, we are looking at death so much worse than the worst hell we've created so far... it boggles the mind. But maybe that's our fate, and we actually aren't that civil or intelligent or worthy of being excluded from the kind of suffering that would ensue. shrug

16 points by onemoresoop 5y ago

jacquesm 5y ago

There apparently isn't a war crime too low for Russia or they will practice it.

goatsneez 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- artem247 5y ago
  [dead]
- yuppie_scum 5y ago
  Whtaboutism is not useful and we can see right through you.
  - goatsneez 5y ago
    Right, (we) have this new meme which is paddled now as a winning phrase of any discussion pointing out double-standard ... it is a invented nonesense and stand on no legal or moral grounds. It is a vapor on which you stand, and signals low levels of own thinking. In the English common law and in many other countries not directly based on that concept there is something called "precedent". It ensures consistency of application of written laws. There is so much to unpack that one cannot do it here. From logic point of view it fails as it neglects "and" clause. If I disagree Paul killing John AND I also disagree with Anna killing Marry. There is no OR, which is where "whataboutism" fails miserably (as it has or in its definition). But the original comment tried to compare it on a moral plane. And that is exactly what I responded to. There is no moral ground to say Russia is worse in its warcrimes than US (or any other country). A warcrime is a warcrime. There is no low and high depending to which nation we hold our allegiance to (at least not for me). Just ponder for a minute this number "Over 600,000 civilians are estimated to have died as a direct consequence of US President George W." [If you serious student of international law then I recommend this (not as a sole authority but as a data point in forming views): https://www.amazon.com/Protesting-Power-Resistance-Peace-Library/dp/0742538923 https://www.amazon.com/Protesting-Power-Resistance-Peace-Lib...] It is precisely this time that it is necessary to call out double speak, duplicity and crookedness of how international laws and morality is selectively applied. The events that are happening are far from unprecedented and that should be put into perspective to tame the manufactured emotions, especially when speaking about morality. That is justice and fairness to the current and past victims the west conveniently puts into collective blind-spot. (And "we" are wondering "why do they hate us; it must be our democracy..." -- if you are not young enough to remember those headlines).
eveningcoffee 5y ago
So far: rape, looting, murder, deportation, stealing, systematic destruction of hospitals and civilian buildings, using thermobaric weapons against civilian structures. Still missing: use of weapons of mass destruction.
- cmurf 5y ago
  Let's not forget that NATO had a "flexible response" policy 40 years ago. This is of course public, that's how deterrence works. Because Russia had a conventional force advantage over NATO at that time, flexible response stated the response would be intentionally escalate to use nuclear weapons as a defense, and also why there was a no first strike policy. By expressly taking first strike off the table, it was in effect blaming Russia should nukes be used in a conflict by tying the use of nuclear weapons to Russia invading Europe with conventional forces. But the roles are now reversed. NATO's conventional force vastly exceeds that of Russia. And in effect Russia's policy is to escalate to using nuclear weapons if they get cornered by conventional warfare. This hopefully explains some of the reluctance to confront Russia directly, including no fly zones. While I think Russia (or at least Putin) deserves WW3 for what they've done, and Ukraine is already experiencing it, the problem is does the rest of the world deserve WW3? ~50% of the world being unwilling to hold Russia accountable for starting a war of aggression and asking them to stop I think is really problematic. I think it is an invitation to another world war to be neutral on such a central tenant of the U.N. Charter as Article 2(4) is, and the conclusion of Nuremberg that wars of aggression to expand borders and/or subjugate people is the supreme international crime. If it really is that big of a crime, then no country should be abstaining let alone agreeing unless they truly stand separate and outside the Charter. If that much of the world is even questioning the relevancy of the Charter so much that they will weaken it in this fashion, as China and India have - in my opinion humanity is fucked. Then we are doomed to have a WW3 at some point. The U.N. is very dysfunctional, as it is a reflection of the world. But it's the best hope we have to avoiding another world war. If we can't, and it surely would involved nuclear weapons, we are looking at death so much worse than the worst hell we've created so far... it boggles the mind. But maybe that's our fate, and we actually aren't that civil or intelligent or worthy of being excluded from the kind of suffering that would ensue. shrug