80 countries sign deal against bombing urban areas

[TonzaPOP123 142]

7 minutes ago, Dennis said:

But this resolution does not call for the complete cessation of targeting anything in a city. That is absurd and unrealistic. The resolution calls for taking into account any damage done to civilians when planning these strikes and refraining from causing collateral damage. Read the resolution text please:
 

2.4 We condemn tactics designed to exploit the proximity of civilians or civilian objects to military objectives in populated areas, as well as the use of improvised explosive devices directed against civilians or civilian objects, and other violations of International Humanitarian Law, including by non-State armed groups, which further exacerbate the risks to civilians and are of grave concern.

2.5 While there is no general prohibition against the use of explosive weapons, any use of explosive weapons must comply with International Humanitarian Law.

2.6 We strongly condemn any attacks directed against civilians, other protected persons and civilian objects, including civilian evacuation convoys, as well as indiscriminate shelling and the indiscriminate use of explosive weapons.

3.4 Ensure that our armed forces, including in their policies and practices, take into account the direct and indirect effects on civilians and civilian objects which can reasonably be foreseen in the planning of military operations and the execution of attacks in populated areas, and conduct damage assessments, to the degree feasible, and identify lessons learned.

I'm not "blind from the truth" as you claim. I'm someone who read the text and won't accuse Ukraine of doing something they haven't done against russian cities just for the sake of sounding "neutral".

So if it isn't explosive but it is done with something else (like 9/11, trigger warning but you know what happened), is it allowed? What the hell...so all these 80 countries allow k*lling innocent people? Hell no!! Please tell me I misunderstood (I have Autism so please sorry if I was ignorant) 

[FfFfFfFF 58,118]

10 minutes ago, Dennis said:

But this resolution does not call for the complete cessation of targeting anything in a city. That is absurd and unrealistic. The resolution calls for taking into account any damage done to civilians when planning these strikes and refraining from causing collateral damage. Read the resolution text please:
 

2.4 We condemn tactics designed to exploit the proximity of civilians or civilian objects to military objectives in populated areas, as well as the use of improvised explosive devices directed against civilians or civilian objects, and other violations of International Humanitarian Law, including by non-State armed groups, which further exacerbate the risks to civilians and are of grave concern.

2.5 While there is no general prohibition against the use of explosive weapons, any use of explosive weapons must comply with International Humanitarian Law.

2.6 We strongly condemn any attacks directed against civilians, other protected persons and civilian objects, including civilian evacuation convoys, as well as indiscriminate shelling and the indiscriminate use of explosive weapons.

3.4 Ensure that our armed forces, including in their policies and practices, take into account the direct and indirect effects on civilians and civilian objects which can reasonably be foreseen in the planning of military operations and the execution of attacks in populated areas, and conduct damage assessments, to the degree feasible, and identify lessons learned.
 

Then why didn't Ukraine sign it, considering its diplomacy remained active all through out the war and is a focus point in the document? It's because the document heavily suggest to restrict and abandon the idea of targeting cities (as you clearly point out with the quotes), which Ukrained does do and which is bound to result in civilian deaths. This is like Russia bombing kindergarten, hospitals and infrastructure because they they house militay stuff, so they feel like it makes them justified in their actions. And when they hit apartments they say they were targeting specific locations. And the biggest elephant in the room is the Ukrainian missle hitting Poland (like 99% confirmed to be Ukrainian) which Zelensky still denies it was Ukrainian. Unless evidence comes out that proves US is wrong, I will make a point to keep my trust in him to more moderate levels.

[Dennis 8,391]

26 minutes ago, TonzaPOP123 said:

So if it isn't explosive but it is done with something else (like 9/11, trigger warning but you know what happened), is it allowed? What the hell...so all these 80 countries allow k*lling innocent people? Hell no!! Please tell me I misunderstood (I have Autism so please sorry if I was ignorant) 

I would argue a plane that explodes into a building is still "explosive" military tactics per say.

I think the spirit of the resolution is to take into account collateral civilian damage and refrain from using explosive weapons to target objects in urban areas if they are expected to result in significant collateral damage.

[TonzaPOP123 142]

1 minute ago, Dennis said:

I would argue a plane that explodes into a building is still "explosive" military tactics per say.

I think the spirit of the resolution is to take into account collaterial civilian damage and refrain from using explosive weapons to target objects in urban areas if they are expected to result in significant collateral damage.

Ohhh, well then yeah, that gives me hope that they won't let that happen ever again. I am trying my best to avoid seeing world news but obviously it's good to be aware of at least SOME stuff that is going on out there, right? Being completely ignorant to all the bad stuff in the world isn't good either. I am sure there is a lot of stuff that they will not tell us, but I guess it is not my responsibility to worry about it, or speculate too much, because it is often very dangerous and harmful not just for me, but for others. There is a lot of misinformation about many things in the world, and I am sure some things are more complicated, there is a lot more to some stories, but it doesn't always confirm all these crazy conspiracies are real either. I guess I need to watch those triggering videos of that horrible thing already...since I am very sensitive...but I feel like it's ok to be curious about dark stuff every once in a while. My therapy just ended after 7 years and it will be on an indefinite hiatus for now. So I just need to use the advice my therapist gave me and send love to the world. 

[Dennis 8,391]

21 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

And the biggest elephant in the room is the Ukrainian missle hitting Poland (like 99% confirmed to be Ukrainian) which Zelensky still denies it was Ukrainian. Unless evidence comes out that proves US is wrong, I will make a point to keep my trust in him to more moderate levels.

Lmao, so a missile launched to intercept an incoming russian missile that was extremely close to NATO border, and accidentally landed in a village in Poland is enough for you to start claiming that Ukraine is engaging in urban bombardment?

How disappointing.

Neither Zelensky, nor NATO are telling the whole truth. Although Zelensky adjusted his claim recently and said he doesn't know what happened, I do wish he refrained from jumping to conclusions. But nonetheless when Russia launches 100 missiles, it's not absurd to expect the missile to be russian, especially when he didn't give an order to attack Poland.

And NATO is not telling the truth as well, because notice how they only mention that the missile is ukrainian, and they don't give any additional details on how close the russian missile was to the polish border. Russia itself claimed that they targeted a facility 22 miles away from the Polish border, merely 22 miles away. (source) And this is the number given by the russian MoD. Who knows if the real number isn't even smaller. But hey, NATO is not saying anything about this. How convenient.

For cruise missiles, that is the difference of 2 minute flight time by the way. So Russia is wholly to blame for this. They are the ones who launched a missile extremely close to NATO border and Ukraine tried to take it down (or took it down, unclear). NATO is conveniently not mentioning this because they want to de-escalate.

And lastly, Ukraine is a lot more than Zelensky himself. These are 40 million people subjected to a horrible fate. Zelensky may not be perfect, but that does mean we should now spread fake information about what Ukraine is doing.

[FfFfFfFF 58,118]

6 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Lmao, so a missile launched to intercept an incoming russian missile that was extremely close to NATO border, and accidentally landed in a village in Poland is enough for you to start claiming that Ukraine is engaging in urban bombardment?

This is an argument made in bad faith. No, the answer is no, but after they falsely said absolutely clear it was a Russian missile, ready to send the whole world to war, one naturally second doubts the things they are saying.

He says now that he doesn't know happen, but speaking in this circumstances about stuff you don't know is super reckles and ones wonders out of 100 things he says, what are those 10 times when "he doesn't know what happened" yet spreads misinformation either way.

Ukraine is absolutely much more than Zelensky. What of the articles I shared are spreading "fake information" about Ukraine? What you are saying doesn't adress my points and it shows you are too blinded in a position to admit anything adverse to it. You are making a disservice to your cause when you approach things in this way.

[Dennis 8,391]

15 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

This is an argument made in bad faith. No, the answer is no, but after they falsely said absolutely clear it was a Russian missile, ready to send the whole world to war, one naturally second doubts the things they are saying.

He says now that he doesn't know happen, but speaking in this circumstances about stuff you don't know is super reckles and ones wonders out of 100 things he says, what are those 10 times when "he doesn't know what happened" yet spreads misinformation either way.

You are too worried about your own self. You were too worried that a NATO war would start because of Zelensky's comments (which was never going to happen anyway). Don't worry. It's ukrainians who will keep being bombarded and killed. You can calm down now.

What does it matter that the debris found at the site of the explosion is Ukrainian, if the missiles themselves tried to intercept or intercepted a russian missile. Who bears the blame?

We need full transparency on this and we still don't have the full details. The belgian defense minister (where NATO HQ is located) gave a few details after NATO briefing and she mentions "pieces of russian missiles" also landed in Poland. Why is this key detail not mentioned enough? I understand that the debris that killed the two poles were ukrainian, but why not also mention that they intercepted or tried to intercept a russian missile? And if pieces of russian missiles landed in Poland, why is NATO secretary and Biden not mentioning this? De-escalation doesn't mean you withhold some details conveniently.

So let's wait for the full details of the investigation before jumping to conclusion. Maybe we know the full truth, and maybe we only know half of it. 
 

 

[FfFfFfFF 58,118]

1 minute ago, Dennis said:

You are too worried about your own self. You were too worried that a NATO war would start because of Zelensky's comments (which was never going to happen anyway). Don't worry. It's ukrainians who will keep being bombarded and killed. You can calm down now.

What does it matter that the debris found at the site of the explosion is Ukrainian, if the missiles themselves tried to intercept or intercepted a russian missile. Who bears the blame?

We need full transparency on this and we still don't have the full details. The belgian defense minister (where NATO HQ is located) gave a few details after NATO briefing and she mentions "pieces of russian missiles" also landed in Poland. Why is this key detail not mentioned enough? I understand that the debris that killed the two poles were ukrainian, but why not also mention that they intercepted or tried to intercept a russian missile? 

So let's wait for the full details of the investigation before jumping to conclusion. Maybe we know the full truth, and maybe we only know half of it. 
 

 

Nothing speaks love and compassion more than to be reckless with the world and bring the war closer to 30 other states with hundres of millions of inhabitants. The mention "which was never going to happen" is a fact or a personal assertion, I wonder? Abd the answer is simple: Russia is to blame for the event, but Zelensky is to blame for the misinformation.

[Dennis 8,391]

13 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

Nothing speaks love and compassion more than to be reckless with the world and bring the war closer to 30 other states with hundres of millions of inhabitants. The mention "which was never going to happen" is a fact or a personal assertion, I wonder? Abd the answer is simple: Russia is to blame for the event, but Zelensky is to blame for the misinformation.

Anyway this conversation diverted. I think I've explained thoroughly why your statement about urban bombardment is false, quoting from the declaration itself. I see that your recent feelings about Zelensky's comments might've affected your judgement in this case. But you do you.

NATO was never going to declare war based on a comment from Zelensky lmao. Just like they didn't impose a no-fly zone no matter how many times Zelensky asked for it. It's not a personal assertion. It's something called common sense.

Regardless of whether NATO should do anything to stop russian aggression or not, and I'm not saying it should, one thing is undeniable: we are being selfish. And anyone who says the opposite is even more selfish than the rest. The reality is we're letting Ukrainians bear the full brunt of this aggression, on their own. Ten millions are without electricity, water. International laws don't mean a thing anymore as the world doesn't try to enforce any of them. It genuinely raises a lot of questions. If a state has nuclear weapons does it mean they get a pass to do anything and everything they want, however genocidal it may be. It is a hard question to answer, but one thing's for sure, only ukrainians are paying the full price here. And we're definitely selfish by restraining our help (for good or bad reason? That's a different discussion).

Moving on.

[FfFfFfFF 58,118]

6 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Anyway this conversation diverted. I think I've explained thoroughly why your statement is false, quoting from the declaration itself. I see that your recent feelings about Zelensky's comments might've affected your judgement in this case. But you do you.

NATO was never going to declare war based on a comment from Zelensky lmao. Just like they didn't impose a no-fly zone no matter how many times Zelensky asked for it. It's not a personal assertion. It's something called common sense.

Regardless of whether NATO should do anything to stop russian aggression or not, and I'm not saying it should, one thing is undeniable. We are being selfish. And anyone who says the opposite is even more selfish than the rest. The reality is we're letting Ukrainians bear the full brunt of this aggression, on their own. Tens of millions are without electricity, water. International laws don't mean a thing anymore as the world doesn't try to enforce any of them. It genuinely raises a lot of questions. If a state has nuclear weapons does it mean they get a pass to do anything and everything they want, however genocidal it may be. It is a hard question to answer, but one thing's for sure, only ukrainians are paying the full price here. And we're definitely selfish by restraining our help (for good or bad reason? That's a different discussion).

Moving on.

No, all of these are personal opinions which you have no way of proving. Fact remains Ukraine is striking Russian cities which likely plays a part into why it refrained from signing the deal even though they remain diplomatically active. You are too eager to see NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine so this explains your view on what happened in Poland. I wat to know in what way thinking a war affecting 44M people is better than one affecting 1000M is selfish and pure common sense.

[Dennis 8,391]

1 minute ago, FfFfFfFF said:

 I wat to know in what way thinking a war affecting 44M people is better than one affecting 1000M is selfish and pure common sense.

Nothing illustrates my point about selfishness more than this. Thank you.

So you think 44M can continue suffering and being genocided if it means "1000M" don't have to come to their aid to stop it.

This is my whole point, the whole way we're looking at this is inheritently selfish. It's important for us to admit it.

As I said, I don't have an answer to this difficult question. No where in my post did I say I was "eager to see NATO boots on the ground". In fact I said "I'm not saying it should" and "It is a hard question to answer". But you seem to be willing to put words in my mouth.

You see my opinion is nuanced. I recognize the risk of NATO joining the war, which is why I don't ask for NATO to join the war, but at the same time I don't lose sight of the fact that Ukrainians are bearing the full brunt of this aggression and we may be too selfish in valuing our interests over their lives.

[Supersonic 49,376]

Resolutions mean literally nothing in public law. When it comes down to it, this is not legally binding. This is pure lip service and posturing. 

[FfFfFfFF 58,118]

3 minutes ago, Dennis said:

 

So you think 44M can continue suffering and being genocided if it means "1000M" don't have to come to their aid to stop it.

 

The lives of 44M >> 966M people!!! I am so not selfish I want 966M people to taste a bit of war because why choose a lesser evil and be grounded in a reality? As if these 44M will have it easier in a full war?

You do want NATO boots on the ground, you said something of these lines before and it's evident from your line of thought.

[dit 46,738]

I dont even trust the countries that signed onto the deal LMAO. Some of them just recently bombed the heck out of various countries around the world lol. I guess this is another deal that's being signed but won't be followed and will be used to have a veneer of being careful and caring 

[Dennis 8,391]

8 hours ago, FfFfFfFF said:

The lives of 44M >> 966M people!!! I am so not selfish I want 966M people to taste a bit of war because why choose a lesser evil and be grounded in a reality? As if these 44M will have it easier in a full war?

You do want NATO boots on the ground, you said something of these lines before and it's evident from your line of thought.

This is not really a sound argument. But for nuclear weapons, we would've had a moral duty to intervene and stop this, even if it cost us lives. It is absolutely selfish to think otherwise.

What would you have said in WW2? Would you have said no to americans liberating europe and stopping Hitler's genocide of 6 million jews and others? With this logic, it would've been convenient to just shield the 132 million americans from war, because 132M > 6 million jews in the concentration camps. I hope you now see how much of a big sacrafice this was. People died in order for you and me to be born on this free land, remember that.

Nobody likes war. But sometimes the world has a collective responsability to stop mass genocides. But this debate is pointless, because nuclear weapons changed this. And NATO and Russia will never fight each other (with or without Zelensky's appeals, which seem to have upset you). As a matter of fact, this sets the precedent for nuclear powers to do whatever the heck they want without being stopped.