Moonbox

I've an bussiness/econ grad, but whatever. I'm soooo ashamed I'm educated. ? Your statement above is hilarious though. On one hand you're complaining that I don't listen to the one doctor who got fired for bullshitting and spreading conspiracy theories, but you're disagreeing with the overwhelming majority of experts is...what? Smart? How do take yourself seriously making this sort of argument? The delusional hypocrisy of it is mind-boggling.

That's fine, but your asking me to defer to your experience as a soldier is a bit hypocritical considering how unwilling you were to the same on issues like the above. Like I said, I'd never for a second question your understanding of the Canadian Rules of Engagement, especially in Afghanistan. On the Geneva Conventions, however, you're not correct. You continue to oversimplify or say stuff that is flat out wrong. Gosh Omar Khadr is about the worst example you could use to make your case. Not only was he a Canadian citizen working with a known terrorist group (which muddies things up considerably), his actions were never recognized as a war crime in international law and his incarceration at GITMO and tribunal proceedings were determined to be violations of international law, and by the SCoC itself. That's not to say Omar didn't commit crimes, because he obviously did, but even as an enemy/unlawful combatant it was clearly determined he still had rights. Everyone has rights - always. They don't magically vanish if you find yourself in a war zone. Stealing from civilian populations (looting) is considered a war crime in itself, and though some amounts of commandeering for things of military value (food, gasoline etc...) may be "okay", taking life-threatening amounts is not and can qualify as a war crime as well. Wrong again. Nobody has no rights under the Geneva Convention. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/COM/380-600007#:~:text=Every person in enemy hands,covered by the First Convention. Which weakens the credibility and authority of the Geneva and Hague Conventions as well as the ICRC. In most cases, war crimes prosecution is reserved for losers and rarely for winners. There's little legal or moral authority behind these exceptions, but the practical realities are what they are. Most war crimes probably go unpunished because, as you say, if you're going to commit one you're probably not too against eliminating witnesses, or in the case of the USA you hold yourself above international law.

but only that guy, and not the other 99% of doctors and experts around the world who disagree with him and can highlight the errors in his conclusions. It's only the dudes who tell you what you want to hear and who parrot your conspiracy theories back to you that have integrity. This is what psychologists like to call cognitive dissonance. Trying to rationalize your farcical world views must be exhausting. You're coping so hard.

Who knows? Maybe nothing, maybe he liked the attention. It doesn't mean his science was good. The better question is why you figure that a small potatoes associate professor at Guelph's Veterinary College is the most authoritative figure on these debates, other than the fact that he's one of the relative few dissenters that places like Rebel Media can comb the world for to support their narrative. but not any other the other trauma surgeons in Canada who disagree with him, or the ones in the US or Europe or everywhere else in the world. The ONLY health professionals that matter are the few that Rebel Media or Fox News or Telegram can highlight. ? Florida's vaccination rates are high, like New York's, they were not ground zero for COVID-19 in the USA (no JFK airport) and it's warm there, so people aren't stuck indoors swapping germs like they are in New York during late winter/early spring. Mississippi's death per capita (helps to filter out population size, in case you don't know) was high because it's an uneducated Bubba state with low vaccination rates.

Show me where and why. There was LOTS of published research about the negative effect of lockdowns on children from universities etc, and from what I understand few/none of them were threatened/censured for talking about the negative effects of isolation etc. The physicians who were disciplined were the ones making shit up about how vaccines would hurt kids and nonsense like that. It's too bad the statistics don't confirm that, with New York falling well behind the numerous 9 other states for deaths per capita despite being the epicenter and ground-zero for COVID-19 when it first spread to the USA. The worst performer? Unsurprisingly, Mississipi. It's almost as if there was a clear correlation between low vaccination rates and the number of deaths per capita ?.

What they generally faced issues with was promoting garbage science and issuing bullshit vaccine exemptions. The licensing body disciplined nobody for merely questioning the justification for mandates. and the results speak for themselves in a lot of these countries - particularly in the USA.

I have about as much experience navigating the Geneva Convention as you do with central banking policy (zero), but that didn't stop you from debating central banking, did it? I'd never for a second debate Canadian Rules of Engagement with you. On these matters I'll happily defer to you as the expert. Not nearly as simple as you make it out to be, and I don't know why you'd bring up Gitmo considering it's widespread condemnation in international law. Sorry bud, but this sort of argument doesn't really cut it in a legal setting. You've demonstrated a fairly poor understanding of how even the Canadian court system works in the past, so excuse me if question your logic in an international setting. Consider, for example, if a squad of Russian soldiers raided a Ukrainian farm, kidnapped the farmer's teenage daughter and then took her to the barn for some "fun". If this farmer grabbed his rifle and attempted to rescue her, are you trying to tell us that he'd be a criminal? He would not. His status as a not-lawful combatant would not diminish his rights to defend himself or his own, nor would it erase his rights under the Geneva Convention. A Russian tribunal might deem him an "unlawful combatant" or whatever they want to call him, but if he's not protected as a PoW under the Third Geneva Convention, he'd be protected under the 4th as a civilian and the Russians would have to make a criminal case against him as a civilian. Since Russians observance of the Law (whether domestic or international) is highly questionable in the first place, it's doubtful how fairly regardless. and this is why wars of conquest haven't really been seriously undertaken in the last 70-80 years. Occupying territory where the natives don't want you is generally a disastrous affair, rarely worth the lives and resources. When a civilian/partisan resistance group forms, most of the people involved do so understanding the inherent danger, knowing that their lives are very likely forfeit if they're caught and that the occupiers will treat them harshly (and very possibly be summarily/extra-judiciously executed). In international law, this is a pretty murky area (as evidenced by GITMO). Denying them rights, representation and fair trials is at the peril of the occupying forces. Ask the convicted Nazi war criminals how they fared for executing French and Soviet partisans. It's not nearly as cut-and-dry as you'd like to think it is. In the case of the USA and Russia, might unfortunately often makes right. The US is likely guilty of a host of war crimes over the years, but their status as the dominant economic and military power makes prosecution difficult/impossible. The Russians and Chinese are blessed with similar protection.

and you don't think doctors in South Korea, or Turkey, or India can examine and filter the CDC's conclusions? Considering that virtually every country in the world treated COVID-19 as a real threat and had some sort of mandate/restrictions to combat it, and considering how heavily they all pushed vaccines, it's pretty silly to say there wasn't consensus on most (though maybe not all) of the major findings...but sure. Tucker Carlson knows better - always.

The echo chamber spanning across borders, ideologies, institutions and even hostile competing nations? Yeah...that definitely makes the most sense.

Not by default, but listening to and acknowledging a consensus of experts across the world and their expertise would be a sign of intelligence. Listening to smarter, more knowledgeable people than you is a type of intelligence in an of itself. Reading stuff on social media and determining that you know better is the opposite of that.

The problem with this logic is that both COVID-19 and Climate Change are global problems requiring global solutions. The simplest and most obvious explanation (that these problems are real and that everyone in the world isn't lying) is usually the correct one. You'd no doubt prefer to stick your head in the sand and pretend both are conspiracies, but this logic requires to believe that everyone around the world is all on-board and in on the scheme. Both the health and climate scientists in Canada, the US, Europe, India, China, Japan etc are all following the same shadowy agenda, along with all of the scholars and journalists and educators...and all to accomplish what, exactly? Control of everything? The debasement of the white race? The end of democracy? It depends on the day and what particular conspiracy theorist you're talking to. ?

You need to trim your replies and organize your thoughts better. No offense intended, but past a certain point the quality of responses you get will diminish with the size of your word count and the number of big paragraphs you lay on us. I'm highlighting that you're oversimplifying and mischaracterizing both the formal rules and the practical realities of how this works. What I quoted is part of the Third Geneva Convention (1949), Article 4, and like I said it's just one example of where you go wrong. It's not illegal nor a war crime to pick up and use a weapon as a civilian against an invading occupier, as you claimed, nor is your right to defend yourself, your property, your family and community based purely on some declaration of your status. Sure, but being a "not-lawful" combatant doesn't make you a criminal and especially not a war-criminal. Your status would be determined upon capture by the occupying forces and their laws. In the case of Ukraine, that would be Russia, whose observance of the Law (both international and domestic) is questionable at best. When you're occupied and no longer in contact with your government, your defacto government becomes your occupier, who obviously aren't going to authorize anything. Your survival at that point depends on their observance of the rules and their goodwill, but so too do your rights and obligations as an occupied "civilian". Ask the French resistance how many of their people were convicted of war crimes, vs how many German occupiers.

If you say so, but economics are both what I went to school for and how I earn a living. I promise you don't want to debate me on this. From the sounds of it, you don't understand them yourself. You're just parroting vague and poorly explained nonsense that you've dredge up from the interwebs. So you can't answer any of the questions I've asked or explain any of the points you're trying to make. Got it.

an example of what? How does it have anything to do with the WEF and why you figure it's so scary?

@West I was asking a legit question. When I ask something specific you just seem to veer off vaguely in another direction about something unrelated, hoping/assuming people just sort of go with it or something. What does the Emergency Act and the Banks freezing people's accounts have to do with the WEF and travel documentation software?

Okay, what does that have to do with the WEF?

Sure, but you can't explain how they'd end up being the actual gatekeepers. Rather than it being a joint effort between the Netherlands and Canada (and other partners that join), why is the WEF the one in charge?

Why not? Maybe they thought it was a good idea and other people agreed. Why are we worried about the WEF being involved again? I'm still waiting on an answer for that. I'm asking questions and you can't answer any of them.

So now use that kernel of truth and examine your own theories and worldviews. Ask questions like, "How does this make any sense whatsoever?" "Is it possible for this many people, organizations and governments across the world to be in on the same conspiracy." just for a start. Come back to us in a few weeks and let us know how you made out.

Why is the WEF in control, rather than a joint venture by all parties involved, who'd be bound by electronic privacy laws in both Canada and Europe? Ask the questions, by all means. If you're going to make conclusions, however, you have to be able to explain them properly, rather than referring vaguely to other unrelated issues that have little/nothing to do with this one - especially when the conclusions you draw on those other issues are equally poorly explained and rationalized.

That's the conclusion you draw from this - that the WEF would control all travel and commerce? Explain the process to me here. Please. The leap in logic you make there is about....5000 miles long. I'm asking questions for which you obviously don't have answers.

You obviously care enough to make shit up and then argue cluelessly about it. If you weren't brainlessly championing the sort of activity you complain about in your neck of the woods, more people would actually take you seriously. It doesn't affect me directly so it's perfectly fine. Yep. That's the attitude I'd expect from someone like you. Pipelines from Alberta don't affect me either, yet somehow I still support them and see the wisdom in them. ?

Yeah okay. Ukraine is a tumor. ?

The picture shows the crossing from the American side completely blocked, clown. Any truck/vehicle crossing into Canada here is has to go through Border Services, which is behind the line of trucks I highlighted. Those trucks were blocking the ONLY exit point from there, which EVERYONE crossing into Canada has to pass. The only other crossings from Detroit are the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel (two lanes, or half the capacity of the Ambassador Bridge) or the Blue Water Bridge in Sarnia which is an hour and fifteen minutes away. Considering they are building a new bridge at the Detroit/Windsor border because the current ones are insufficient to handle existing traffic, it doesn't take a math wizard to see why having the Ambassador Bridge blocked caused so many problems.

The cops beside the McDonalds are on the OTHER side of the blockade - there are trucks in between them and the bridge. Now you're purposely bullshitting - and I don't think you're even trying to convince anyone but yourself The idea that you're wrong is so jarring to the mental fantasy you've constructed that you'll move Heaven and Earth to rearrange picture-proof to fit your reality.