@vivify saidQuite a stretch like when you criticized me for calling Russian troops in Ukraine "occupiers". Remember how that worked out?
Just like when Duchess "criticized" China's treatment of Muslims while attacking any report of China mistreating Muslims. So too with you and the invasion.
@no1marauder saidYes. It worked out with your use of the word being proved wrong.
Quite a stretch like when you criticized me for calling Russian troops in Ukraine "occupiers". Remember how that worked out?
1 edit
@vivify saidLMAO! You must not have read the last two posts in the prior thread on the Dugin assassination I already linked to.
Yes. It worked out with your use of the word being proved wrong.
Either that or you believe Human Rights Watch and President Zelensky were "proved wrong" too.
3 edits
@no1marauder saidThat article appears to have been written in February, 2022, before Russia annexed Donetsk and Luhansk.
LMAO! You must not have read the last two posts in the prior thread on the Dugin assassination I already linked to.
http://www.mofa.pna.ps/en-us/mediaoffice/israeliviolations/annexation-under-international-law
"a number of violations on the part of the occupying Power, which render the occupation illegal. These include annexation of territory"
Once an occupying force annexes territory it is no longer a legal occupation under international law. Hence, why you calling Russia an "occupying force" when they had already taken over territory was wrong. That was explained to you in the very thread you cited.
@vivify saidOMG, what a stubborn idiot you are.
That article appears to have been written in February, 2022, before Russia annexed Donetsk and Luhansk.
http://www.mofa.pna.ps/en-us/mediaoffice/israeliviolations/annexation-under-international-law
"a number of violations on the part of the occupying Power, which render the occupation illegal. These include annexation of territory"
Once an occupying force annexes t ...[text shortened]... hey had already taken over territory was wrong. That explained to you in the very thread you cited.
The HRW link shows that assertion is dead wrong. And Zelensky's comments referring to Russian "occupiers" post dates those alleged annexation, which were illegal under international law.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidFalse. The HRW article doesn't even mention annexation, which changes the nature of an occupation under international law.
The HRW link shows that assertion is dead wrong.
@vivify saidIt says unilateral actions by the occupier do not alter the status of the occupied territory under the two international treaties cited.
False. The HRW article doesn't even mention annexation, which changes the nature of an occupation under international law.
Does that have to be put in a coloring book for you to understand how it applies to the Russian occupation of Ukraine's territory?
@no1marauder saidLook kiddo, you posted a link in that article that outright refuted you. This was apparently such an embarrassment you still remember this a year later.
It says unilateral actions by the occupier do not alter the status of the occupied territory under the two international treaties cited.
Does that have to be put in a coloring book for you to understand how it applies to the Russian occupation of Ukraine's territory?
If it makes you feel better, then Russia is an illegal occupying force. The reason why I criticized you in the first place is that you seem to choose language that softens Russia's actions, such as calling a brutal invasion "occupying". Other instances of you doing the same were pointed before, like in that thread you referenced.
That pride of yours...still bitter months later because your own hubris caused you humiliation.
@vivify saidNo, you made a fool of yourself and continue to do so by claiming my use of the term "occupiers" was proof of a pro-Russian bias. Turns out it was accurate according to international law and President Zelensky.
Look kiddo, you posted a link in that article that outright refuted you. This was apparently such an embarrassment you still remember this a year later.
If it makes you feel better, then Russia is an illegal occupying force. The reason why I criticized you in the first place is that you seem to choose language that softens Russia's actions, such as calling a brutal inva ...[text shortened]...
That pride of yours...still bitter months later because your own hubris caused you humiliation.
@no1marauder said"Continue to do so".
No, you made a fool of yourself and continue to do so by claiming my use of the term "occupiers" was proof of a pro-Russian bias.
Oh? Did I bring up this thread months after everyone forgot about it?
I just agreed that this is an illegal occupation. So cheer up. Get a beer, make an attempt to get laid.
@vivify saidActually what I remembered was that there was a thread about the Dugin assassination, where the consensus was Putin had decided to blow up one of his strongest supporters for convulted MB-type conspiracy reasons.
"Continue to do so".
Oh? Did I bring up this thread months after everyone forgot about it?
I just agreed that this is an illegal occupation. So cheer up. Get a beer, make an attempt to get laid.
The WP article not only says that, in fact, the Ukrainians, again the logical suspects, did it but that Western nations admonished them for doing so.
@kevcvs57 saidI am anti-NATO.
You are on the left wing of the democrat party, are you claiming that wing is not pro Russian in so far as it’s anti nato and thinks Ukraine could do worse than being subsumed into Russia
I make no claims of neutrality in this issue I am avidly pro Ukrainian and anti Putin regime and its expansionist policies.
You know full well that neither I or the left-wing of the Democratic Party supports Ukraine being "subsumed" into Russia.
2 edits
@no1marauder saidNo argument here. I was just sharing thoughts, not claiming this actually happened.
Actually what I remembered was that there was a thread about the Dugin assassination, where the consensus was Putin had decided to blow up one of his strongest supporters for convulted MB-type conspiracy reasons.
The WP article not only says that, in fact, the Ukrainians, again the logical suspects, did it but that Western nations admonished them for doing so.
Again: earlier that same year Russia was accused of staging not one but two car-bombings; Putin was also accused of killing his own people in order to spread propaganda, all of which was discussed with links. Add the fact that bomb was detonated only *after* Dugin (for some mysterious reason) switched cars with his daughter, and not during the drive there. Everything just seemed too suspicious.
Note the thread was deliberately posed as a question, not as declaration of fact.