Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "UATV English"
channel.
-
65
-
28
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Law is law. Feigning a surrender is a war crime specifically listed in the Geneva conventions.
If one, like the Russian soldier in the video, comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are no more keeping prisoners. You are in battle, and in battle you don't look for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look EXCLUSIVELY at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
Fighting enemies are shot at. It's not like they're playing paintball.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If one, like the Russian soldier in the video, comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are in battle, and It's not like in battle you're looking for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look solely at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
Fighting enemies are shot at. It's not like they're playing paintball.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@changeshifter4852 "Only"?
I would be grateful that the EU froze that money in first place, BECAUSE NONE FORCED THEM and, if the EU decides to give a single cent of that money to Ukraine, IT'S A GIFT, NOT A DUE.
Let's be clear. IT'S NOT UKRAINIAN MONEY. It's money that the EU can decide to give Ukraine, in part or all, OR NOT and, to give it, even in part, many EU countries have to force their legislations, because they are functional democracies, where judiciary is an indipendent power, and governments can't decide of other's properties at will.
So let's start to not pretend to be outraged because the EU is deciding to give some dozen billions/year to Ukraine.
1
-
@changeshifter4852 I'm not really sorry if this angers you, because it seems you are doing anything you can to be angered. "changing the deal"? "profiting"?
The only deals that had been changed are those with Russia, because it's Russian money that had been frozen, the only one that's talking of the EU council "profiting" of the seized money is you, and those money had NOT being frozen saying they would have been given to Ukraine as they are. If you imagined that, it's nobody else's fault.
I already explained you that those countries are functional democracies, where judiciary is an indipendent power, and governments can't decide of other's properties at will. If you, as it seems, are not able to understand how a democracy with an indipendent judiciary works, there's nothing I can do for you. I can only advise you to take some lesson of civics before talking of these arguments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If one, like the Russian soldier in the video, comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are in battle, and It's not like in battle you're looking for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look solely at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
Fighting enemies are shot at. It's not like they're playing paintball.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BS-vm5bt I didn't say it's right, but that's how it is.
Collaborations tipically only cover from two to four countries. Airbus is French-German-Spanish, is not Italian, Polish, Greek, or of other 21 members of the EU, so, for them, to buy Airbus products is financing France, Germany and Spain, in exchange of what?
EMBT is French-German, not of other 25 EU members. Why the Poles should finance Germany and France instead of the US or Korea?
The Eurofighter (British German, Italian, Spanish) had a French Competitor. Why, say, the Dutch should favor the Eurofighter in respect of the Rafale or the F16? The French-Italian FREMM have Spanish and German competiors. Etc.
What if the collaboration project did born as a competitor of an already existing European product? The Eurocopter Tiger was made by Airbus Elicopter when the Agusta A129 Mangusta already existed. If French, Germans and Spaniards dont' want to give their money to an Italian company, why should Italy buy a German tank?
1
-
Have them being searched? No. So how did you decide they were unarmed?
They had not surrendered, they feigned a surrender, that's a war crime specifically listed in the Geneva conventions.
If one, like the Russian soldier in the video, comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are in battle, and in battle you don't look for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look EXCLUSIVELY at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
Fighting enemies are shot at. It's not like they're playing paintball.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mam0lechinookclan607 It's a very obvious sign that someone had been shot at. "execution" is your guessing. People not moving before being executed is your guessing.
No. Sorry. It some case, like at Bucha, had been DEMOSNTRATED the executions of civilians had been performed by the Russians when the villages were in their hands, while the Russians claimed they had been performed by the Ukrainians AFTER the villages had been liberated by the Ukrainian army, because, when the bodies had been filmed on the ground, they were in the same position they were in the satellite pictures taken when the villages were in Russian hands. The fact that civilians had ben executed is demonstrated by the fact that they were civilians, not soldiers, and they had been killed. It had NOTHING to do with their position. Their position only has to do with the demonstration about WHO did it.
Unfortunately, Geneva conventions seem to not agree with your moral.
It's pretty funny that you accuse others of performing "mental gymnastic" once seen your performance on body positions and Russian war crimes.
I've not to justify anything. Your pretense to have a higher moral than others is laughable.
You have not to justify to me your double standards. Normal or not, You should not have them in judging alleged war crimes.
Then why you are blinded by your own emotions on judging war crimes?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Feigning a surrender is a war crime, specifically listed by the Geneva conventions.
If one, like the Russian soldier in the video, comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are in battle, and It's not like in battle you're looking for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look solely at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
Fighting enemies are shot at. It's not like they're playing paintball.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
1
-
It's not murder, it's fight.
They had not surrendered, they feigned a surrender, that's a war crime specifically listed in the Geneva conventions.
If one, like the Russian soldier in the video, comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are in battle, and in battle you don't look for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look EXCLUSIVELY at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
Fighting enemies are shot at. It's not like they're playing paintball.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
1
-
@WotansCry As already said, if there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
If he managed to kill all of them before they had the time to move, well done, he had been efficient.
In a fight, you don't look for the safety of the enemy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1mcg1 One of the Russians attacked the Ukrainians in the video. It doesn't need ANY other attack for all of them to be killed where they were. The men on the ground participating in the attack doesn't have any importance. That's only a "a posteriori" consideration". In a fight, you don't look for what enemy is shooting at you and who hasn't started yet. The only concern a soldiers is required to have is for his own safety and that of his unit. Not for that of the enemy.
The bodies being in the same position where they were before the attack, or having been moved, doesn't logically have ANY importance in deciding their death having been an execution or not. Executed men can be (and usually are) moved before the execution. Not executed men can be (and usually are) shot were they are. They were held at gunpoint, apparently in the same positions, by a machinegun. It can very well mean that they had been killed rapidly, with a single bursts, during the fight.
Sorry, but psicological interpretations of the attitude of the Swedes don't have any importance. One can say that, since they love the Ukrainians, they idolized them and want them to hold to higher standards than what's simply required by the laws of war. IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY IMPORTANCE. What counts are facts, not how Swedes, Australians or Martians interpret them.
If Europe and US will lose interest in Ukraine based on something that's not a war crime, that will not make it a war crime. Facts are not changed by the consequences.
1
-
1
-
There is none "excusing" anything.
The Russians did not surrender, they feigned a surrender, that's a war crime specifically listed in the Geneva conventions.
If one, like the Russian soldier in the video, comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are in battle, and in battle you don't look for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look EXCLUSIVELY at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
Fighting enemies are shot at. It's not like they're playing paintball.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They had not surrendered, they feigned a surrender, that's a war crime specifically listed in the Geneva conventions.
If one, like the Russian soldier in the video, comes out shooting, then the whole enemy unit is supposed to have feigned surrender and set up an ambush. You are in battle, and in battle you don't look for which enemy is shooting at you and which one hasn't started yet. At that point you have to look EXCLUSIVELY at the safety of YOUR unit. Especially since the "surrendered" had not yet been searched.
Fighting enemies are shot at. It's not like they're playing paintball.
If there had been, there, on the ground, with the machine gun, keeping the "surrendered" at gunpoint, a NATO soldier, professional and perfectly educated on international war conventions, at the very moment when the Russian had come out firing, I expect he would have pulled the trigger, only to release it in one of the following two cases:
1) when he was sure that none of the enemies could move anymore.
2) because the belt had ended.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1