Comments by "GorillaGuerillađșđŠ" (@gorillaguerillaDK) on "Anders Puck Nielsen"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
If a structure doesn't have specific military value, but has significant importance in regards to uphold life of the civilian population, then it's a violation of the Rules of War.
This means, prolonged targeting of powerplants in an effort to create a humanitarian catastrophe is a violation of the Rules of War.
Targeting hospitals is a clear cut violation of the Rules of War.
Deliberately targeting civilians, (not counting collateral damage when targets do have military relevancy), is a violation of the Rules of War.
Declaring annexation of an occupied territory is a clear cut violation of the Rules of War!
Attacking civilian buildings of cultural significance is also a violation of the Rules of War.
Perfidy, (such as waving a white flag, and then attacking when your opponents closes in to take you in custody, also a violation of the Rules of War.
Killing or torturing PoW is s violation as well
Using places like hospitals, elderly care homes, nuclear power plants, etc., as a hideout/base of operation, is a violation too, (if you're not allowed to shoot at it, you're not allowed to draw fire towards it either)...
In regards to power plants, taking out structures as part of an all our assault can be valid as a military target, but only temporarily if the purpose of the attack is to shut down power to let's say an airstrip before attacking it!
Or if the powerplant can be seen as influential on the effort to wage war, such as a powerplant supplying an arms production facility!
Same goes for other forms of infrastructure - if it has significant military value, then it's usually a valid target!
The bridge from Russia to Crimea, transport of military supplies and soldiers, definitely a valid target!
A pedestrian bridge in the middle of Kiyv used by joggers and and dog walkers - nope!!!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
 @67wouterÂ
As I expected, you have NO idea of how NATO actually functions!
NATO didn't participate in the invasion of Iraq;
In fact, several NATO countries opposed it!
NATO's involvement in Iraq started much later, with a UN mandate and on the request of the Iraqi government, in fact the Iraqi government has recently asked NATO to stay a little longer, as NATO soldiers are helping training soldiers there.
Heck, I got two friends who's deployed there right now.
One of them is there to teach officers in the armed forces about the Rules of War, and the Importance of them.
Also, NATO's involvement in Libya was with a UN mandate!
You do realize that just because a country that is a member of NATO does something, doesn't mean NATO is doing it!?
NATO is a seperate entity, it's a extremely democratic organization where every major decision is voted on - all members have veto power, and if just one country decides to use it, NATO won't be involved - but that doesn't mean the countries can't do what they want on their own - it just won't be in NATO regi...
It's completely BS that NATO "became a vessel for increased aggression against countries outside of the treaty", au contraire NATO created the Partnership for Peace program - and yes, that included Russia.
For a time we all hoped that Russia would become a democracy like it's European neighbors - and we even conducted military operations togheter!
Russia took part in the UN mandated, NATO lead KFOR mission, Russia took part in missions to deal with piracy!
Heck, there was even efforts to make Russia part of the Enhanced Partnership Program, a status that would bring it even closer to NATO and possible membership!
But then Russia decided to invade a sovereign neighboring country that also were part of the PfP program, back then it was Georgia, and the efforts to bring Russia closer cooled off for a couple of years, but the US insisted that new efforts should be made and negotiations had started, but then Russia decided to invade Ukraine, again a PfP program member on its way to get Enhanced Partnership status!
And logically it has cooled off any beliefs in the possibility of Russia being interested in peaceful relations!
2
-
2
-
2
-
 @DMW-1989Â
Hvis du gÄr ind pÄ Karriere i Forsvaret, sÄ plejer de at have en sektion vedrÞrende Civile Job opslag.
En anden mulighed, som mÄske kan vÊre interessant hvis du er troende Kristen, er at kontakte det nÊrmeste KFUM soldaterhjem og hÞre dem om de mangler arbejdskraft.
Der kan du ihvertfald indgÄ i noget hvor du er med til at skabe nogle hyggelige timer for vores soldater.
(Det er vist ikke et krav at du skal vÊre Kristen, men da der bliver holdt andagt/bÞn mv., sÄ er det nok et minimum at du kan huske dit Fadervor, uagtet om du er troende eller ej).
Fra min egen tid i forsvaret kan jeg huske at nogle af de soldater der brugte KFUM rigtig meget var nogle af de vÊrnepligtige der mÄske havde det lidt svÊrt i forhold til det sociale, men som egentlig gerne ville det.
Men nu er det selvfÞlgelig ogsÄ ved at vÊre MANGE mÄner siden, og mÄske er de unge idag en smule mere omsorgsfulde overfor hinanden, og flere af de her personer kunne have det lidt svÊrt med de sociale aspekter bliver i stÞrre grad sorteret fra idag, pga vi nu ved mere om Autisme og ADHD.
(Egentlig synd, for der er nogle skarpe hoveder iblandt dem, men omvendt er der muligvis ogsÄ en Þget risiko for PTSD efter udsendelse).
Men ellers ved jeg nÊsten ikke hvad jeg kan foreslÄ, mÄske spÞrge den nÊrmeste veteran café om de kan bruge lidt hjÊlp?
Derudover er jeg desvĂŠrre blank.
DesvÊrre er medicin krÊvende tilstande selv idag en lidt kompliceret problemstilling nÄr det handler om Forsvaret - og det er selvfÞlgelig rigtig synd nÄr du tydeligvis rigtig gerne vil noget med Forsvaret.
2
-
2
-
 @ChurchCommitteeÂ
Well, if you counted all my responses, then I guess you're right and I've written more posts than the 15-20 or something connents I thought I was at.
Yes, I engage in the conversation under several of Anders P. Nielsens videos.
Sometimes I just express that I'm delighted to see another video from him. I have absolutely no idea if he has ever read a comment of mine, I sometimes add my thoughts on the topic, mention things I wish he had mentioned, or ask questions - just like most others do when commenting on YouTube.
I'm sure you can find videos where I've engaged even more than I have so far on this one!
Well, you got lucky, I was watching the Superbowl, so I answered pretty quickly.
If you had any real knowledge about NAFO, the history behind, and the enormous amount of internal disagreements there is in this movement, you would also know that it is based on volunteers who raise fonds through charity to various projects benefitting Ukraine, and counter the constant attempts of dishonest Russian historic revisionism and disinformation spread by vatniks, (you know, you can just look up what it means right? As you might have guessed it's a slang word, and yes, you're right, vatniks isn't something positive), and of course by Glavset, aka Yevgeny Prigozhin's "Trolls of Olgino", and various European social media "influencers" who assist Russia in their spread of propaganda to "justify" Russia's imperialist efforts and their war of aggression towards a democratic European country that has no interest in being a vassal state to Russia.
Oh, and in case you haven't realised it, the moment you and I engage in debates on the topic of Ukraine, we both become low key volunteer contributors in one of the outermost layers of hybrid warfare.
It is unavoidable as long as there is a war going on, and there is people who support Ukraines right to exist without getting invaded, occupied, and having a neighboring country attempting to steal Ukrainian territory - and people who think the old Kissinger way and insist we should accept that some countries has the right to wage war to uphold hegemony in their "sphere of influence" - or even worse, thinks that Ukraine is just part of Russia and thus should submit to the rule of Kremlin!
As long as the war is raging, and these viewpoints are the defining narratives of the two sides, any contribution to the debate is de-facto part of hybrid warfare.
Although, in our case, a very low key and in a grain of salt in the universe kind of way....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
 @JABN97Â
The reason the incident you mention can be considered problematic is that the collateral damage it caused was due to the mission being successful.
Of course, if it's a valid military target, it's always about countering the risk of collateral damage towards how critical it is to take out the target - and figure out how to terminate it while trying your best to avoid collateral damage!
Now I'm not familiar with the case in question, but I sometimes have to question some of the decisions made by Dutch courts on military issues.
Now as I said, I'm not familiar with this exact case - and there might have been very valid reasons for the court to rule as they did - BUT, I also remember that a Dutch court ruled against UNPROFOR DUTCHBAT for their role at Srebrenica in 1995!
FFS, it wasn't DUTCHBAT who failed at Srebrenica, it was UNPROFOR leadership!
Just like NORDBAT2 in Tuzla in 1994, DUTCHBAT was denied CAS, (or any other forms of support), against the Serbs, however, the Danes in NORDBAT2 had something DUTCHBAT didn't have, 10 big beautiful cats, (aka Leopard Tanks), so when the Serbs started carpet-bombing the Danish and the Swedish soldiers they were at least able to fight back - DUTCHBAT had nothing!
And yet a Dutch court blamed them for not stopping the Serbs!
That was disgraceful behavior by the court IMHO!
But my small rant aside, and sorry about that, I just had to get it off my chest...
So, in this case, it was basically an "unsuccessful" attack - not because the Russians shot them down, BUT because the Russians "took control" over the drones, (jammed them and forced them to change direction 180â°).
I'm trying to come up with an easily explained scenario - and I think it's best described this way.
If I'm driving my car with explosives towards my target, let's say it's your local Ginger Bread bakery, (although I would never bomb such a wonderful place), - and you somehow get into the car and put a gun to my head and tell me to instead go to your in-laws house a couple of blocks away!
Yes, it's true that I'm responsible for driving the vehicle with explosives, but if it hadn't been for your intervention, you would have to attend Sunday dinner at your in-laws but without ginger bread for tea/coffee later...
I'm sure I've stopped making sense a couple of sentences ago - probably shouldn't have taken two double G&T...
Sorry bout your in-laws and the Gingerbread Bakery!!!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2