Is Russiophobia one of Trudeau's "Acceptable Views"?

[Army Guy]

18 hours ago, Moonbox said:

That's not right, at all.  The term "unlawful combatant" isn't used anywhere in either the Hague or Geneva Conventions.  The third Geneva Convention specifically states the following sorts of people are considered protected persons and would qualify as prisoners of war:

• 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

in addition to irregular forces, militias and other arms-bearing resistances or insurgencies

Your right, but they do use " not a lawful combatant" and if one is not a lawful combatant what would they be Skippy.. maybe an unlawful combatant... which is determined at a military court, to assign status, until then your either a target that can be engaged freely,( i explained that before) or treated as a POW if captured, once their status is confirmed at a military tribunal in this case as a Unlawful combatant.... ... it should be noted that an unlawful combatant is not entitled to all the right within Geneva Conventions be treated as a regular POW, but will be treated humanely ....I also wrote that Ukraine has issued out military "ID cards" to all that registered with the Ukraine government "no card" then you ass is grass, welcome to the unlawful combatant side... 

Those with ID cards issued by Ukraine Government are "combatants" those that are not are illegal combatants...which is a war crime.

International Committee of the Red Cross. 1 January 2011. Retrieved 30 June 2019. If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered " unlawful " or " unprivileged " combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms).

The conventions describe a lawful combatant in great detail, , and also describe someone that is not a lawful combatant as a Not lawful combatant... which could and is an unlawful combatant....unless you want to play the word game....

The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more sovereign states. Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of detainees whose combatant status is in doubt should be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, they must be treated as prisoners of war.^[4] After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual is not a lawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the individual the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An individual who is not a lawful combatant, who is not a national of a neutral state, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent state, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".^[5]

Art 51. - Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

 

[Army Guy]

17 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I have said it before and I say it again.  I have absolute contempt for Putin, his entire government. his entire army and those Russians who support him directly or indirectly. They are all murderous bastards committing genocides against a defenseless nation including women and children.

so do we all...

[Miloburke]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Absolutely NATO is an aggressive threat. Anyone who edges up beside of you with weapons is a threat. 

Have you not noticed how many countries the US has bombed lately? Places where they've interfered in elections? Appointed prosecutors? Toppled regimes? 

The people of Canada will ignore hate mongering from their PM, and will look away while police beat up peaceful protesters and freeze the bank accounts of Canadians who did nothing. We're not gonna stop Hillary Clinton from doing anything.

CTV and CNN will say Hillary needed to do it, she never lied about anything, she just acted on the intel that she had.

This may not be your first rodeo but you still can't tell a horse from a bull. 

Zelensky.

Threatening to bring in NATO was the first shot. Zelensky even admitted yesterday that he has always known that joining NATO was a bridge too far but he kept yakking, even with Russian troops surrounding his country. 

All it takes is a signature on the dotted line and Russia would be unable to have that buffer zone that they need. 

Because they chose a leader who was on the wrong path. That's what happens. German people suffered when they elected Hitler. Canadians are suffering from electing Trudeau. Americans are suffering from electing Biden (now Saudi - China). We're already paying, but we're gonna be paying for a long time to come. 

The suffering of Ukrainians was caused by something that you don't understand. 

Regardless of how badly the Russians need a regime change, having NATO at their border was not an option for the people of Russia. 

Russia spans 11 time zones and shares a border with 11 or 12 countries, their geopolitical situation is nothing like ours. 

America is insulated from pressure by the earth's two largest oceans. So is Canada. 

Russia is between China and NATO. 

Yes, you have a myopic world view. 

So, the answer to the problem is Russia has every right to flatten Ukraine, kill civilians and it is all Zelensky's fault. Wow, My worldview is myopic? You can't see past the edge of your alt-right echo chamber. But that's okay, you have a right to your view.

If Putin believes Russia has a right to attack its neighbour because it happens to be between NATO and China, then he suffering from a bad case of paranoia. As I said, NATO has too many members with different political views to agree on a preemptive strike on Russia. Besides, we learn from history, Napoleon and Hitler both tried to invade Russia and look how those turned out. Anyone who would contemplate picking a fight with Russia needs to be institutionalized.

[Faramir]

3 minutes ago, Miloburke said:

So, the answer to the problem is Russia has every right to flatten Ukraine, kill civilians and it is all Zelensky's fault. Wow, My worldview is myopic? You can't see past the edge of your alt-right echo chamber. But that's okay, you have a right to your view.

If Putin believes Russia has a right to attack its neighbour because it happens to be between NATO and China, then he suffering from a bad case of paranoia. As I said, NATO has too many members with different political views to agree on a preemptive strike on Russia. Besides, we learn from history, Napoleon and Hitler both tried to invade Russia and look how those turned out. Anyone who would contemplate picking a fight with Russia needs to be institutionalized.

So would you concede NATO shouldn't exist at all.  After all why do we an Islamist state like Turkey as a part of NATO.  They definitely don't share Canadian values.

Zelensky and Russia are 2 different issues.  Zelensky is a globalist shill who supports Zuckerberg, Soros, the Bidens and other globalist minions.

WestCanMan is one of the most moderate ones on this board - hardly alt-right.  That is just a slur against those of us who have stayed in our same political positions as the world drifted leftward.

[eyeball]

16 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

so do we all...

That's not true.  There are clearly people here who are quite certain Ukraine was asking for it.

[Army Guy]

15 hours ago, myata said:

1.... Can you get a quote on that? Territorial defense is a standard practice in many countries and it has nothing to do with what you said even if it was true.

2.....Besides, Russia bombed and shelled residential buildings; municipal offices and services; hospitals, including children's; deliberately disrupted critical services to the population such as water, electricity and heating; razed entire towns and parts of cities (Volnovakha; Mariupol; Kharkov); is interfering with nuclear power facilities. Russia routinely places its weapon systems in the middle of civilian areas holding civilian population hostage. Prevents evacuation of civilians and attacks them as they are trying to flee killing them.

This is way past Geneva. This is state terrorism, deliberate attacking and killing of civilians, destruction of places, elimination of a free independent nation, edging on a genocide. Crimes in the same league and not a grain smaller or different from Al Qaeda's. And it follows that Russian invaders in Ukraine should be treated as such, murderous criminal terrorists as their own acts brand them and nothing less.

If it's not enough for Geneva convention in some twisted view, then certainly for several war crime and crime against humanity trials in The Hague.

 

1.... if you are involved with any defensive organization then the Government of Ukraine gives you a ID card, plus that yellow arm band , those people are covered as Soldiers or combatants... those with out that are unlawful combatants and not afforded most protocols within the conventions...see the post a gave Moonbox for sources...

2... Hey I am not on Russia's side just explaining some of the rules...and both sides are doing all of that you described ...and it makes those safe zones or places your suppose to really avoid...targets... the real question here is how many people have been tried for war crimes, not many, unless your a nazi, and certainly not many from the winning side...

3. Al Qaeda does not have thousands of nuclear war heads at their disposal... which for now is keeping NATO at bay, well that and NATO does not have the combat power to defeat them in Ukraine right now, and that could take months to prepare...that and praying that all of that remains conventional....

4... The problem is proving all of it in a court of law, which has the same standards of proof as most western nations have...while in Bosnian we had filmed war crimes ( killing of military age men, for 16 to 60 years old) by the bus loads and spent months tracking down names with faces, all of it submitted to UN HQ in NY, not one charge was laid...and the next 7 days we pulled out well over 90 dead Bosnian people from the river... same in Kosovo where they found dozens of mass graves, nothing...  

[Army Guy]

9 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

No, he didn't.  He still supports Putin. Still has a picture of him and Putin on his Instagram. Won't take it down because he worries his family in Russia would then be targeted.... For this to make sense, you have to assume accusing Putin of potentially going after his family is not as insulting as removing an Instagram photo.

While I agree lots of Russians are innocent victims in this, Ovechkin isn't one of them. He's always been a Putin loyalist and he still is.

Alex Ovechkin on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: 'Please, no more war' (nbcsports.com)

[Faramir]

26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's not true.  There are clearly people here who are quite certain Ukraine was asking for it.

The way they cozied up and are still cozying up the left wing thugs like Zuckerberg Soros and the Bidens doesn't do a lot for their case.

[BubberMiley]

18 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Alex Ovechkin on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: 'Please, no more war' (nbcsports.com)

Yes, which can also be interpreted as "Surrender, Ukraine", given his reluctance to criticize his master.

[CITIZEN_2015]

1 hour ago, Faramir said:

So would you concede NATO shouldn't exist at all.  After all why do we an Islamist state like Turkey as a part of NATO.  They definitely don't share Canadian values.

I have absolute contempt for those Islamic states like stinky state of Saudi Arabia who suppresses women and cut off hands and like Taliban Afghanistan who suppresses women and force backward islamic laws or Islamic republic of Iran who force women to wear hijab (not as evil as previous two though but evil enough) or any islamic pig who do not believe in total equality for freedom for women however, Turkey is not one of them thank to Kamal Ataturk. In the past as islamic Ottoman they did very bad deeds but today's Turkey is almost non-islamic with laws protecting women's rights and with beaches for tourists and should be a good ally in NATO. It is their drones right now destroying Russians tanks in Ukraine.

[Miloburke]

2 hours ago, Faramir said:

So would you concede NATO shouldn't exist at all.  After all why do we an Islamist state like Turkey as a part of NATO.  They definitely don't share Canadian values.

Zelensky and Russia are 2 different issues.  Zelensky is a globalist shill who supports Zuckerberg, Soros, the Bidens and other globalist minions.

WestCanMan is one of the most moderate ones on this board - hardly alt-right.  That is just a slur against those of us who have stayed in our same political positions as the world drifted leftward.

So, Russia can invade Ukraine and kill its people because Zelensky is a globalist shill who supports Zuckerberg, Soros, the Bidens and other globalist minions. Really? When the Republicans win back the House and Senate this year and Trump is reelected in 2024 should the U.S. outlaw the Democratic Party? After all, according to you, they are globalist shills who supports Zuckerberg, Soros, the Bidens and other globalist minions.

If the Republicans do not win back the congress and the White House should the right mount a civil war?

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Faramir said:

The way they cozied up and are still cozying up the left wing thugs like Zuckerberg Soros and the Bidens doesn't do a lot for their case.

What would in your opinion?

[Moonbox]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Your right, but they do use " not a lawful combatant" and if one is not a lawful combatant what would they be Skippy.. maybe an unlawful combatant... which is determined at a military court, to assign status, until then your either a target that can be engaged freely which is determined at a military court, to assign status, until then your either a target that can be engaged freely,( i explained that before) or treated as a POW if captured, once their status is confirmed at a military tribunal in this case as a Unlawful combatant

This is what you said:

No they are straight out of the Geneva convention... If a person is declared a civilian , and he picks up a weapons' he becomes an unlawful combatant....which is not only illegal to be and can be tried as a war crime

This is what's in the Geneva Conventions:

 

• 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

I'm not terribly concerned about the terminology you want to use (not-lawful or unlawful - it doesn't really matter to me), the point I was trying to make was that you were quoting the Geneva Conventions and getting them very wrong, with your statement above directly contradicting Article 4.16. 

The standards for laying charges against Ukrainian militias and resistance fighters would be high.  Even partisans in occupied territories would be afforded protections providing they follow some basic rules.  

 

 

[Moonbox]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Alex Ovechkin on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: 'Please, no more war' (nbcsports.com)

Where in there does he say he doesn't support Putin?  He's been a vocal Putin supporter in the past and continues to be.   "Please no more war" is a worthless statement and should be viewed as such - akin to China saying, "hey guys stop fighting" (with a wink-wink nudge-nudge to Russia."  

If Olex Ovechkin was against Putin's invasion in Ukraine he would have said so.  Instead, he offered a fluffy marshmallow statement that meant nothing and was only delivered in the hopes to appease fans, teammates and peers who are obviously judging him now for his long-standing support for Putin.  

[myata]

12 hours ago, Moonbox said:

There are ways to rebuild those bridges,

That involves time, much and long, and hard, sustained effort, lots of it, and it's far from a given or even likely that Russia as a country, society, population not the regime could possess or gather enough.

[myata]

9 hours ago, Army Guy said:

and both sides are doing all of that you described

Not going to spend much time here, but surely you have some evidence that Ukrainians are deliberately destroying cities, shelling schools and hospitals on their territory, killing their fellow citizens including children (over a hundred now, Google) to make a claim like that?

Then do check (better, the images) about: Grozny; Aleppo; any number of places in Syria; and now: Kharkiv; Mariupol; Volnovakha; and any number you like of more places in Ukraine being razed to the ground by Russian murderous bastards, under the convention. It wouldn't hurt to refresh on where Russia's borders are, in all of these cases. Then go back to claiming that "all sides doing it".

Edited March 17, 2022 by myata

[myata]

10 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Your right, but they do use " not a lawful combatant"

This is not some Aleppo, some place God knows where. This is the geographical center of Europe. Now, this 21st century. Talk about conventions.

https://storage2.censor.net/video/3/170322_vol.mp4

[Moonbox]

8 hours ago, myata said:

That involves time, much and long, and hard, sustained effort, lots of it, and it's far from a given or even likely that Russia as a country, society, population not the regime could possess or gather enough.

I think given time and no Vladimir Putin, Russia's younger population would naturally shift towards European values.  They've just never really had the chance.  

[WestCanMan]

17 hours ago, Miloburke said:

If Putin believes Russia has a right to attack its neighbour because it happens to be between NATO and China, then he suffering from a bad case of paranoia. 

It's not "NATO". It's the WMDs that America just lied about, strategic nukes, etc. Everyone is scared of those. 

Ask Kennedy fans if they wanted to live with the threat of nukes in Cuba. They'll wave pom-poms and tell you that the Cuban missile crisis was awesome. But Russia is 'paranoid'.

Surely you must see how stupid that is when you look at it. 

[Moonbox]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It's not "NATO". It's the WMDs that America just lied about, strategic nukes, etc. Everyone is scared of those. 

Ask Kennedy fans if they wanted to live with the threat of nukes in Cuba. They'll wave pom-poms and tell you that the Cuban missile crisis was awesome. But Russia is 'paranoid'.

Surely you must see how stupid that is when you look at it. 

Russia is pretending to be paranoid.  There are NATO bases in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania already.  If NATO wanted to fire nukes point blank into Russia they could do so from Estonia.  Putin and his regime know there's literally zero threat of Russia proper being attacked (there'd be no political will for it anywhere in NATO) but is using this silly idea as a pretext for invasion.  
 

[eyeball]

49 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I think given time and no Vladimir Putin, Russia's younger population would naturally shift towards European values.  They've just never really had the chance.  

Is it time to finally put the notion behind us that trading with authoritarian countries will democratize them and make them more like us?  Given the opposite is true how much longer do we continue to fool ourselves into believing it?

A strict policy of no truck nor trade is the only policy we should have towards dictatorships and the policy should extend to any country that breaks it.

Our grandparents sacrificed some 40% of their GDP resisting tyranny. 

[West]

Looks like Vladimir wants to do a self cleansing of sorts to get rid of the traitors in Russia. Mass Graves apparently. My guess is the anti war protesters end up six feet under soon if they haven't already. 

Trudeau's taking notes for the next protest with "unacceptable views" and continues to hold Pastor Artur in solitary confinement for the crime of organizing a protest. 

Edited March 17, 2022 by West

[Faramir]

37 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Is it time to finally put the notion behind us that trading with authoritarian countries will democratize them and make them more like us?  Given the opposite is true how much longer do we continue to fool ourselves into believing it?

A strict policy of no truck nor trade is the only policy we should have towards dictatorships and the policy should extend to any country that breaks it.

Our grandparents sacrificed some 40% of their GDP resisting tyranny. 

Yeah, I actually agree with you 100%.  That should also apply to China, but I know it never will.  The idea of nation building I thoroughly reject.

[eyeball]

13 minutes ago, Faramir said:

Yeah, I actually agree with you 100%.  That should also apply to China, but I know it never will.  The idea of nation building I thoroughly reject.

That's good, a few years ago this opinion routinely caused people to regard me as a commie and written this off as naive leftist nonsense.

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Russia is pretending to be paranoid. 

Just like Kennedy did, right?

Stop projecting your idiotic assumptions on other people and them vilifying them for it.

Quote

There are NATO bases in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania already. 

If you have a couple of small tumours on your lung do you say "Hey, sweet, there's a huge one now, 8x the size of both the other ones? Or is your logic flawed?

If you have a Nazi family living on one side of you who host the occasional hate party, would you just say "It's no big deal" when the KKK opens up a huge training facility on the other side of your house? Or would you be against it?

It's pretty weird to think that Russia would just be ok with a massively deteriorating situation. 

Quote

If NATO wanted to fire nukes point blank into Russia they could do so from Estonia. 

Estonia is a problem for Russia, but a much smaller problem than Ukraine would be. Ditto for Latvia.

Ukraine has 15x as many people as both countries combined, it's 6x bigger than both, and it has 3,000+ km of border with Russia and Belarus. Latvia and Estonia have about 700km of border with Russian and Belarus.

So, depending on whether you're talking about how much land mass there is to hide weapons, the population of your new enemy, or how much border you have to defend, Ukraine is a much bigger problem than both of those countries is either 4x, 6x or 15x bigger than the both of those other two.