Print

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

[MonkeyHead]

The report zooms in on six attacks between september and november, on the cities of Homs, Idlip and Aleppo.
The attacks killed about 16 IS fighters, and over 200 civilians.

Wait, aren't those cities the very same cities that have been claimed by Western media to have no IS forces in them? I'm pretty sure that there ain't any IS in Homs, Idlib and Aleppo, at least not in any meaningful numbers.

Pretty sure I have not seen a single claim from any of the media sources I access that has made such a claim, sorry. I would also suggest that 16 fighters in 3 cities killed in attacks of large enough magnitude to kill 200 civilians constitutes a not very meaningful number of fighters.

[Sergarr]

Weird. I remember it was a Big Thing™ that Russian bombers were only moving around these three places, proving that Russia did not really wanted to attack ISIS since "there is no ISIS there, only anti-Assad rebels". I mean, I've seen that thing being posted all over the place, several times, are you not sure you did not just miss it?

[Loud Whispers]

The report zooms in on six attacks between september and november, on the cities of Homs, Idlip and Aleppo.
The attacks killed about 16 IS fighters, and over 200 civilians.

Wait, aren't those cities the very same cities that have been claimed by Western media to have no IS forces in them? I'm pretty sure that there ain't any IS in Homs, Idlib and Aleppo, at least not in any meaningful numbers.

Don't know about Homs and Idlib, but for Aleppo yes. Well, kind of, certain Western media started blaming Russia for appearance of ISIS in Aleppo

Pretty sure I have not seen a single claim from any of the media sources I access that has made such a claim, sorry. I would also suggest that 16 fighters in 3 cities killed in attacks of large enough magnitude to kill 200 civilians constitutes a not very meaningful number of fighters.

I dunno, for Russia it is very good number, just look at the Moscow theatre crisis. 50 terrorists, 800 hostages... No spetznaz died, but 180 casualties - mission accomplish

[Shadowlord]

Does Russia even care what amnesty international thinks?

Is this a problem for them in any way?

[Strife26]

Does Russia even care what amnesty international thinks?

Is this a problem for them in any way?

Does anyone?

[Shadowlord]

Okay Best Korea thread, time to take over the world (news).

News from Brazil:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/12/23/brazil-declares-emergency-after-2400-babies-are-born-with-brain-damage-possibly-due-to-mosquito-borne-virus/

[Loud Whispers]

Does anyone?

Have to admit that got laffs from me, but the lower level amnesty people do some honest moral work at risk to their own lives... Even if the management is many things bad

[smjjames]

Saw this in one of those generated tabs in that google tab list page when you open a new tab:
http://qz.com/574352/putin-signs-a-law-that-allows-russia-to-ignore-international-court-rulings-that-it-doesnt-like/?utm_source=ff

Doesn't the US tend to do this sometimes? Though pretty sure we don't have a law saying that we can ignore it, which btw, having such a law is also against the law in the Vienna Convention.

[Loud Whispers]

I thought the US was half the world's international law

[Strife26]

Everyone does that. International law is a realm of absurdities and fluffy words. It's where ten years of consolidation will see the Islamic State on the Human Rights Commission.

Compared to the body of International Law, Amnesty International is neatly equal in authority to the Second Law of Motion.

[Sergarr]

Doesn't the US tend to do this sometimes? Though pretty sure we don't have a law saying that we can ignore it, which btw, having such a law is also against the law in the Vienna Convention.

Well, there's a US law that says that USA has the right to use military force to free its own soldiers from international criminal court, which is as good as saying that it has a law saying that US can ignore any verdict of the said court in relation to its army. So that's one. There's also this gem:

For example, the United States had previously accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation in 1946 but in 1984, after Nicaragua v. United States, withdrew its acceptance following the court's judgment that called on the US to "cease and to refrain" from the "unlawful use of force" against the government of Nicaragua. The court ruled (with only the American judge dissenting) that the United States was "in breach of its obligation under the Treaty of Friendship with Nicaragua not to use force against Nicaragua" and ordered the United States to pay war reparations (see note 2).

So basically US, at least if I understand how it's "common law" system works, has a precedent for ignoring the decisions of international courts if they don't like them, effectively meaning that they do have a law saying that they can flat-out ignore international law.

[Strife26]

Yeah, that's pretty much everyone's stance. National sovereignty trumps international agreements whenever the nation is strong enough to do so.

[Neonivek]

The difference between National law and International law is as such

National law is like a binding contract
International law is like an agreement between friends

[Loud Whispers]

The difference between National law and International law is as such

National law is like a binding contract
International law is like an agreement between friends enemies

[Strife26]

The difference between National law and International law is as such

National law is like a binding contract
International law is like an agreement between frenemies