Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Yeh. It's a pity you didn't read the next sentenceYou don't shoot unarmed soldiers full stop.
Yeh. It's a pity you didn't read the next sentenceYou don't shoot unarmed soldiers full stop.
What about the recent time the Ukrainians did just that, where those soldiers were waiting to listen to that major general? Didn't see you raising this point then.You don't shoot unarmed soldiers full stop.
Yes it is a war crime which is why you don't target unarmed soilders.Yeh. It's a pity you didn't read the next sentence
Probably not all of them were armed, but it was a large explosion and it's fairly certain that some of those present would be armed.What about the recent time the Ukrainians did just that, where those soldiers were waiting to listen to that major general? Didn't see you raising this point then.
You think russian soldiers at or near the front line are un-armed?What about the recent time the Ukrainians did just that, where those soldiers were waiting to listen to that major general? Didn't see you raising this point then.
That wasn't what was posed. What does the GC have to say about attacking hospitals wether civilian or military?That said, it's total bullshit that you can't shoot an unarmed soldier under the Geneva Conventions. They must be unarmed and surrendering.
I was replying to Pickman's facetious What If. Obviously no, hospitals are out of bounds under The Rules but the Russians have already showed a somewhat more flagrant disregard for said rules than most militaries of developed countries do. (Because let's face it, they've all broken them at one time or another. It's just how often and with how much enthusiasm that makes Russia special)That wasn't what was posed. What does the GC have to say about attacking hospitals wether civilian or military?
The simple point was something can be wholly and utterly military - a military target - yet wholly off-limits as a legitimate target. Demarking things as military or civilian targets illuminates nothing and appeals more to cheap emotions. But I know how much you prefer to refuse to engage with an argument in its entirety instead mischaracterising a portion of it.I was replying to Pickman's facetious What If. Obviously no, hospitals are out of bounds under The Rules but the Russians have already showed a somewhat more flagrant disregard for said rules than most militaries of developed countries do. (Because let's face it, they've all broken them at one time or another. It's just how often and with how much enthusiasm that makes Russia special)
How am I mischaracterising a single sentence. If what you wrote wasn't what you meant, that's only on one of us. But I'm pleased you've had the opportunity to know me so well at least.The simple point was something can be wholly and utterly military - a military target - yet wholly off-limits as a legitimate target. Demarking things as military or civilian targets illuminates nothing and appeals more to cheap emotions. But I know how much you prefer to refuse to engage with an argument in its entirety instead mischaracterising a portion of it.
There's no what if in there for a start.How am I mischaracterising a single sentence. If what you wrote wasn't what you meant, that's only on one of us. But I'm pleased you've had the opportunity to know me so well at least.
That was, belive it or not, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't seriously comparing the two. Facetious, as I said. If you were dead serious about the comparison, then I'm sorry that you're just a cunt. I actually thought better.There's no what if in there for a start.
We're all cunts here, I thought you'd got that memo years ago. But with regards to the current exchange I think where you're going wrong is in not actually reading the posts, instead just looking at them. Your introduction of the gc, for example. My post to would be about the shelling of the military parade was exploring their views. They brought up not shooting unarmed soldiers (which would make conducting military operations much more complicated than they are already). Tbh I'm baffled by your post which doesn't seem to me to reflect any rational or most irrational readings of the recent exchange.That was, belive it or not, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't seriously comparing the two. Facetious, as I said. If you were dead serious about the comparison, then I'm sorry that you're just a cunt. I actually thought better.
I may very well be confused today. It's not a good day at Casa C and I should probably stay the hell away from this thread rather than trying to escape through it. I still read it all different, but I concede that I'm not the most rational player today. Mum's been constantly not controlling her diabetes while visiting from Canada and insisting that she's just fine when she's clearly making no sense to not just myself. That probably belongs more in the pissed off thread than shitting in here.We're all cunts here, I thought you'd got that memo years ago. But with regards to the current exchange I think where you're going wrong is in not actually reading the posts, instead just looking at them. Your introduction of the gc, for example. My post to would be about the shelling of the military parade was exploring their views. They brought up not shooting unarmed soldiers (which would make conducting military operations much more complicated than they are already). Tbh I'm baffled by your post which doesn't seem to me to reflect any rational or most irrational readings of the recent exchange.
Let's reconvene at another time, and I hope peace is soon restored to casa chzI may very well be confused today. It's not a good day at Casa C and I should probably stay the hell away from this thread rather than trying to escape through it. I still read it all different, but I concede that I'm not the most rational player today. Mum's been constantly not controlling her diabetes while visiting from Canada and insisting that she's just fine when she's clearly making no sense to not just myself. That probably belongs more in the pissed off thread than shitting in here.
Men in their seventh decade?
Men in their seventh decade?
But this is completely different, because... because Putin.
But this is completely different, because... because Putin.
No they didn't they just fenced off the Areas and the SEVERAL MILLION antipersonnel mines laid by Argentina.The UK dropped a total of 106 cluster bombs on the Falklands, an area of the world with a population density that makes rural Ukraine look like Tokyo, spent years using the couple of garrisons it has hanging around there cleaning it up and there is still cluster contamination in the Falklands. So yes, that sounds easy, should have it all sorted in a jiffy.
several million?No they didn't they just fenced off the Areas and the SEVERAL MILLION antipersonnel mines laid by Argentina.
30,000 or soseveral million?
That's quite a difference. And are they still just 'fenced' in ?30,000 or so
Think they've all been cleared now. Someone like Sasaferrato might knowThat's quite a difference. And are they still just 'fenced' in ?
no they were all cleared Land mines in the Falkland Islands - Wikipedia it was actually only 30000.That's quite a difference. And are they still just 'fenced' in ?
did you not bother reading the above post which completely contradicts you?no they were all cleared Land mines in the Falkland Islands - Wikipedia it was actually only 30000.
Argentina whined that it wasnt consulted or offered the oppurtunity to help
Might want to edit your original post ?no they were all cleared Land mines in the Falkland Islands - Wikipedia it was actually only 30000.
Argentina whined that it wasnt consulted or offered the oppurtunity to help