Play Nice The NM Devil's Chessboard Thread - Part II

[Chadwiko]

I'd like to know how you think that's possible.

Do you think every single airstrike/bombing that involves civilians deaths is "terrorism"?

 

[Chadwiko]

It's so weird how "Ukrainian intelligence" is making up these stories from Seoul and the offices of the NIS.

North Korean troops have arrived in Russia to fight Ukraine, says Seoul

Russian navy ships reportedly transferred 1,500 forces to Vladivostok, where they are being trained

www.theguardian.com

 

[Sphynx]

You can see why Ukrainian intelligence is making up desperate stories about thousands of North Korean soldiers as a distraction.

Reuters must be using deepfake videos then....




It's certainly now a dangerous escalation in the war. You now have an asian country in open conflict with a European country on European soil.

This is well beyond proxy involvement and Keir Starmer is right, pure desperation. As the risk to Putin is huge for this decision. Gives Ukraines allies legitimate cause to contribute boots on the ground now.

 

[Chadwiko]

Reuters must be using deepfake videos then....

You'll figure Warlord out pretty quickly. His system is not complex;

1. If it makes Russia look good, it's true
2. If it makes Russia look bad, it's fake news

 

[Val Keating]

Because he's old as **** and he would have been 85 years old at the end of his next term if elected. It's too old.

He thought he could do it, but then changed his mind.

Not everything is a sinister conspiracy.

Oh stop. You know why. His brain is failing.

 

[ferball]

Do you think every single airstrike/bombing that involves civilians deaths is "terrorism"?

Proportionality | How does law protect in war? - Online casebook

casebook.icrc.org

 

[The Warlord]

You'd have to have a dolphin skin smooth brane to buy the Ukrainian spin on manpower

 

[Chadwiko]

Proportionality | How does law protect in war? - Online casebook

casebook.icrc.org

Okay but did you actually read that?

 

[Val Keating]

It's so weird how "Ukrainian intelligence" is making up these stories from Seoul and the offices of the NIS.


View attachment 2148238

North Korean troops have arrived in Russia to fight Ukraine, says Seoul

Russian navy ships reportedly transferred 1,500 forces to Vladivostok, where they are being trained

www.theguardian.com

Do you think Ukraine can defeat Russia?

 

[Val Keating]

Reuters must be using deepfake videos then....




It's certainly now a dangerous escalation in the war. You now have an asian country in open conflict with a European country on European soil.

This is well beyond proxy involvement and Keir Starmer is right, pure desperation. As the risk to Putin is huge for this decision. Gives Ukraines allies legitimate cause to contribute boots on the ground now.

Is that a good thing? Western allies putting boots on the ground I mean.

 

[Chadwiko]

Do you think Ukraine can defeat Russia?

We have been over this ad nauseum in this thread.
Ukraine isn't trying to "defeat Russia". They're defending themselves and trying to maintain their sovereign integrity.

 

[Chadwiko]

You'd have to have a dolphin skin smooth brane to buy the Ukrainian spin on manpower

I'm sorry, but can you cite this "Ukrainian spin on manpower" that you're seemingly arguing against?

 

[Chadwiko]

Is that a good thing? Western allies putting boots on the ground I mean.

Is it a good thing for North Korean boots to be on the ground?

 

[ferball]

Okay but did you actually read that?

Yes and I knew what the principle was before I read it.

The term "excessive in proportion to the direct military advantage" defines the idea. So Israel can get away with saying the the dead civilians in the car that a Hamas senior militant was driving (ie his family) are not disproportionate to the direct military advantage they gain by killing him. But the civilian deaths in the tower block they leveled to get one mid ranking Hamas militant are disproportionate whatever they say.

(Especially if they are using AI to determine targets and when to attack targets because its unlikely the AI is trained to minimise civilian deaths in its target aquisition procedures. In fact its obviously not because otherwise we'd have seen alot less carnage.)

This brings us back to the idea of deliberately targeting civilians. There is no functional difference between not minimising civilian impact to a reasonably proportional ratio and deliberately targeting civilians. They are two different ways of describing the same thing.

A missile hitting the apartment of a Hamas medium level militant might kill other civilians, probably the other people in the apartment and maybe those directly above, below or next to it but its making an effort to limit the damage using a means of warfare (ie a weapon system) that has less impact than a 2000lb bomb hitting the entire apartment block.

Obviously that comparison isn't me trying to delineate what is and isn't acceptable. Its just illustrating the way the means of warfare can change the outcomes for civilians simply because of the scale of the weapons used.

 

[ferball]

We have been over this ad nauseum in this thread.
Ukraine isn't trying to "defeat Russia". They're defending themselves and trying to maintain their sovereign integrity.

To be able to defend their territorial integrity and maintain their sovereignty they will need to "defeat Russia" in terms of ending this invasion and then expelling Russian forces from their country.

 

[Chadwiko]

To be able to defend their territorial integrity and maintain their sovereignty they will need to "defeat Russia" in terms of ending this invasion and then expelling Russian forces from their country.

This conflict has been going on for over 2 years.

Are we really back to this discussion? Haven't we covered this over and over and over again?

 

[Chadwiko]

Yes and I knew what the principle was before I read it.

So did I, which is why I wrote that there's a difference between 'war crimes' and 'terrorism'. Because that's just a fact in international law.

This brings us back to the idea of deliberately targeting civilians. There is no functional difference between not minimising civilian impact to a reasonably proportional ratio and deliberately targeting civilians. They are two different ways of describing the same thing.

Look I get what you're saying and I kinda agree, but unfortunately in a legal sense what you're saying isn't quite accurate. There's a big difference between malicious actions and negligent actions, for example. I suspect the crux of your argument is more moral/emotional as opposed to talking about actual law pertaining to war crimes, terrorism, and the like.

 

[Chadwiko]

Okay let me pivot here for a sec to test your position on this then ferball;

Are Russia a terrorist state for the cities they've absolutely levelled in Eastern Ukraine?

 

[Val Keating]

Is it a good thing for North Korean boots to be on the ground?

Obviously not. Unlike you, I’m not cheering our way to a global war

 

[Val Keating]

We have been over this ad nauseum in this thread.
Ukraine isn't trying to "defeat Russia". They're defending themselves and trying to maintain their sovereign integrity.

Yes, but to what end? I agree that Ukraine should defend itself, but the war is lost. It has been for a long time and continuing the fight will only see them lose more people and land.

 

[Chadwiko]

I agree that Ukraine should defend itself, but the war is lost.

By what definition is the war 'lost'?

 

[Chadwiko]

Obviously not. Unlike you, I’m not cheering our way to a global war

Okay but then I'm curious; why do you say nothing about the actual North Korean troops, but you do about the potential NATO troops?

Also, not once have I ever "cheered" for a global war.

 

[ferball]

So did I, which is why I wrote that there's a difference between 'war crimes' and 'terrorism'. Because that's just a fact in international law.



Look I get what you're saying and I kinda agree, but unfortunately in a legal sense what you're saying isn't quite accurate. There's a big difference between malicious actions and negligent actions, for example. I suspect the crux of your argument is more moral/emotional as opposed to talking about actual law pertaining to war crimes, terrorism, and the like.

I'm talking about my opinion and the moral situation. Don't care what international law says. No state will define another state's action as terrorism unless they are at or about to be at war with them. Remember the context of this discussion? We're following on from Sphynx saying that Israel (ie the state, specifically the gov, not the nation which is the state plus the people plus probably something else) and Hamas are both terrorist organisations?


The reason i mentioned proportionality in the context of collateral damage is that it gives people a mechanism to decide if a state is committing an act of terror or not.

 

[Chadwiko]

I'm talking about my opinion and the moral situation. Don't care what international law says.

Okay and that's fine, but surely you can understand my confusion when you said (and I quote): "The only difference between terrorism and war crimes is the so called legitimacy of the state committing the terrorism" , and when I responded saying that wasn't accurate, you responded with a link to the ICRC Casebook...

But as I said; sharing a subjective opinion is totally fine. I just wanted to clarify because your opinion differs from the law, and that's all I've been saying right from the beginning.

Do you consider Russia a terrorist state?

 

[Chadwiko]

The amount of times I've read someone in this thread claim that European or American support for Ukraine was coming to an end, and then the amount of times such statements have been proven demonstrably wrong... is surprisingly high.

Ukraine war briefing: G7 defence ministers pledge ‘unwavering support’ for Ukraine

Mixed reaction to Zelenskyy’s ‘victory plan’; Video purportedly shows North Korean recruits collecting Russian military fatigues. What we know on day 970

theguardian.com