Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Ukrainian Ranger]

More interesting: What will happen to those ten? Kiev kinda can't let them go without something happening to Crimea...

I'd go with inviting their relatives from Russia and giving prisoners back to their hands using that for a very wide press coverage

[smjjames]

What's the rest of that last sentence?

[Owlbread]

Well that's the second TV debate down in the Scottish Independence Referendum campaign. The first one, between Alistair Darling (figurehead of the Unionists) and Alex Salmond (leader of the Scottish Government) was won by Darling according to an ICM/Guardian poll, showing that 56% of a sample of 500 people thought he won compared with the 44% that thought Salmond won. On the basis of that poll the BBC reported quickly that Darling had narrowly won, while the biased press (by that I mean all Scottish newspapers bar one) heralded it as "Darling draws first blood" and stuff like that. You may recall how terrible I felt after that and I quickly conceded the referendum to the Unionists.

This latest debate was summed up by the BBC as one with "no clear winner", although "the supporters of Salmond will be the happier ones tonight". Commentary on national news described it as "rough" and "heated" and other nonsense, trying to portray it as one of those "more heat than light" debates they are so fond of complaining about. The Scotsman newspaper's editor claimed it was a "close draw".

The thing is, BBC, you terrible people, there was another poll after this debate just like the last one, by the same pollster. It showed that Alex Salmond won by 71% vs Darling's 29%. He had over 40% of the vote over Darling. Despite having sworn not to I actually caught the end of it when I was making a cup of tea. Salmond was on top form and effectively demolished Darling. In my eyes he was statesmanlike. Darling looked rattled, nervous and he was actually apologetic in his closing statement when he said "and yes, I know I did talk about currency again but etc" - he certainly did. He knew that currency was a winner in the first debate but he parroted the old lines and jibes all over again and made a fool of himself. He was a self parody.

As an aside, the sample of 500 people were also asked their voting intentions. 51% would vote No, 49% would vote Yes. I'm not going to crow about that, despite it being pretty damned good, because I know the sample is very small.

I think that regardless of how the referendum goes from here on out, tonight (and the newspaper headlines tomorrow and the days after) will be the best example of how the BBC and the majority of the Scottish press organisations are biased in favour of Unionism and the British State. If some blasted hack writing for the Scotsman or something tomorrow claims that Salmond "edged a victory" I will scream.

[Helgoland]

Common Article 2 relating to International Armed Conflicts

This article states that the Geneva Conventions apply to all cases of international conflict, where at least one of the warring nations have ratified the Conventions. Primarily:

    The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version.
    The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action.[12]
    The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions.[12]

Article 1 of Protocol I further clarifies that armed conflict against colonial domination and foreign occupation also qualifies as an international conflict.

When the criteria of international conflict have been met, the full protections of the Conventions are considered to apply.

That ougt to have some interesting implications for the Israeli-Palestine conflict - has Hamas accepted and applied the provisions of the conventions?

[smjjames]

Common Article 2 relating to International Armed Conflicts

This article states that the Geneva Conventions apply to all cases of international conflict, where at least one of the warring nations have ratified the Conventions. Primarily:

    The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version.
    The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action.[12]
    The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions.[12]

Article 1 of Protocol I further clarifies that armed conflict against colonial domination and foreign occupation also qualifies as an international conflict.

When the criteria of international conflict have been met, the full protections of the Conventions are considered to apply.

That ougt to have some interesting implications for the Israeli-Palestine conflict - has Hamas accepted and applied the provisions of the conventions?

Doubt it, and besides, they've been breaking the Geneva Convention all over the place.

[MonkeyHead]

Common Article 2 relating to International Armed Conflicts

This article states that the Geneva Conventions apply to all cases of international conflict, where at least one of the warring nations have ratified the Conventions. Primarily:

    The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version.
    The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action.[12]
    The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions.[12]

Article 1 of Protocol I further clarifies that armed conflict against colonial domination and foreign occupation also qualifies as an international conflict.

When the criteria of international conflict have been met, the full protections of the Conventions are considered to apply.

That ougt to have some interesting implications for the Israeli-Palestine conflict - has Hamas accepted and applied the provisions of the conventions?

One could also quite legitimately ask if Israel is following them, too.

In any case, thanks for the info regarding the convention. The more you know...

[Sergarr]

Dude, do you really enjoy doing this?

You have no idea how long I've waited for this.

[MonkeyHead]

Well that's the second TV debate down in the Scottish Independence Referendum campaign. The first one, between Alistair Darling (figurehead of the Unionists) and Alex Salmond (leader of the Scottish Government) was won by Darling according to an ICM/Guardian poll, showing that 56% of a sample of 500 people thought he won compared with the 44% that thought Salmond won. On the basis of that poll the BBC reported quickly that Darling had narrowly won, while the biased press (by that I mean all Scottish newspapers bar one) heralded it as "Darling draws first blood" and stuff like that. You may recall how terrible I felt after that and I quickly conceded the referendum to the Unionists.

This latest debate was summed up by the BBC as one with "no clear winner", although "the supporters of Salmond will be the happier ones tonight". Commentary on national news described it as "rough" and "heated" and other nonsense, trying to portray it as one of those "more heat than light" debates they are so fond of complaining about. The Scotsman newspaper's editor claimed it was a "close draw".

The thing is, BBC, you terrible people, there was another poll after this debate just like the last one, by the same pollster. It showed that Alex Salmond won by 71% vs Darling's 29%. He had over 40% of the vote over Darling. Despite having sworn not to I actually caught the end of it when I was making a cup of tea. Salmond was on top form and effectively demolished Darling. In my eyes he was statesmanlike. Darling looked rattled, nervous and he was actually apologetic in his closing statement when he said "and yes, I know I did talk about currency again but etc" - he certainly did. He knew that currency was a winner in the first debate but he parroted the old lines and jibes all over again and made a fool of himself. He was a self parody.

As an aside, the sample of 500 people were also asked their voting intentions. 51% would vote No, 49% would vote Yes. I'm not going to crow about that, despite it being pretty damned good, because I know the sample is very small.

I think that regardless of how the referendum goes from here on out, tonight (and the newspaper headlines tomorrow and the days after) will be the best example of how the BBC and the majority of the Scottish press organisations are biased in favour of Unionism and the British State. If some blasted hack writing for the Scotsman or something tomorrow claims that Salmond "edged a victory" I will scream.

Owly old chap, I think you will find the BBC being very honest about tonights events, you cynic...

Initial factual analysis of statements
Live feed featuring key points/videos, not likley to be up for much longer. PLenty of interesting comments from both sides texted and tweeted in.
In depth analysis of individual exchanges.

All remarkably neutral to me, overall.

[Owlbread]

You are right, Monkeyhead. I concede that the BBC, on those fronts at least, was neutral and informative. It's their talking heads and overall reporting lines on the rolling news that are getting to me.

[mainiac]

Yes, explicitly.

IMHO, that does not seem to explicitly fit the situation we are seeing.  Russia denies being in an armed conflict with Ukraine so those soldiers can't be seen as Russian participants in an armed conflict.  AFAIK, the Geneva convention extends no protected to clandestine agents operating in other nations and Ukraine would be free to execute them as spies (although they wont).

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Dude, do you really enjoy doing this?

You have no idea how long I've waited for this.

Hangover will be nasty. You Russians are so delusional about the might of your  army. You closed your eyes and prefer to not see, that Putin wastes resources and lives for a war that can bring Russia nothing good.

Already hundreds  of Russian citizens became a fertilizer on Ukrainian soil. Not all of them were lucky enough to get a grave... Yet you don't care, you have a noble goal of becoming a "superpower"

I'd love to hate you, Sergarr... but can't. You are nothing but a stupid kid that thinks that war is a some kind of TV show happening in another reality

[smjjames]

Hey, come on, no need to hate Sergarr for something his government is doing. You don't like Russia, okay fine, but no need to go and insult fellow forumers who happen to be Russian.

Though I do agree that most of the Russian populace is blind to the actual reality, propaganda and all that.

Also, I think you might be taking that quote out of context?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

BTW, guys, how do you think what will Russia say about this captured guys....

I have several versions
a) Say nothing
b) Say that this guys are volunteers that served in Russian army long time ago
c) Announce that this guys are cowardly deserters and crossed into Ukraine without an order
d) Same as C, but they are ethnic Ukrainian Right Sector members who betrayed mother Russia

Ministry of Defense of Russia surprised me -

according to their version that paratroopers ACCIDENTALLY crossed Ukrainian border while paroling

[Sergarr]

My father defended the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and he knew that if he died, nobody would even acknowledge that he was there. But he did it anyway, and where he and his PBS squad defended the border, no weapon caravans would get through.

You think you know all about war, UR? You know nothing about what true war with Russia looks like.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

No, I don't know all about the war, I am not on the front. I know more than I want to. I know that I lost friends on this war

How war with Russia looks like you ask?  It is not hard to see, I read history

Spoiler: short answer specially for you (click to show/hide)

War with Russia = Hordes of Russian cannon fodder rotting in the fields.
War with Russia = Cities turned to rubble, because Russians are best at fighting civilians against an army you never reach something better than 5 to 1 in losses
War with Russia = Marauding and rapes of the scale no other army can manage