Adm_Drummer

Have you watched any of SNW or are you deciding to pass judgement on a show based on... Nostalgia?

Its a really good show and the musical episode doesn't feel out of place in an episodic Star Trek show. I think you should give it a good try. The show is a lot of fun and is a return to classic episodic trek with great stories intertwined.

Well, yeah. I guess society always has. But you took my use of "modern society" hyperbole as like, today's modern society when I really meant modern society in the frame of reference of the people experiencing it at any given moment in history.

Checkmate, lemmy autist. Lol

Does he not speak of how organised and collectivist Bourgeois/Capitalists are seen as productive and good (because they're rich) yet an organised and collectivist proletariat is unproductive and bad (because it makes the rich less rich). It's fine for the rich to gather wealth and help eachother get rich but it's not okay for the common person to help those around them rise to equal footing.

Where organised and collectivist = Quirky and Free-spirited;

Productive = Cool;

Good = Fun;

Unproductive = Uncool;

Bad = Unfun.

Modern society labels personality quirks and non-conformity as Cool and Fun when the person displaying those traits has money and status.

But have a poor person display the same and they're weird, or odd, creepy or sad. Otherwise Uncool and Unfun.

Author's note: I spent way to long typical out this shitpost.

I'm naming my E-Tool Dragula as we speak.

I want one. How much?

Sincerely, man who has dug way too many trenches.

I'm glad I could be of a little help. Nations have been trying to clearly define these things for centuries.

I think your final statement is why I'm here. A lot of internet discourse around war immediately resorts to calling everything a war crime. That's an incredibly precise label and we can't always be certain. What I know for sure is that war is hell and undue suffering is wrong.

I responded above I hope that provides enough. Though I didn't speak to article a).

It may sound like a legal cop-out but some countries make a distinction between "The Red Cross" and "a red Cross". It's a weird one. Probably requires more scrutiny.

And as to your question of "Would this be a crime committed in war?" Or "A war crime?" That's where lots of legalese comes in. It may be that one nation sees it as a crime where one doesn't. Or the UN finds it a war crime but another organisation doesn't or is a partial signatory or conscious observer and so on.

This is then something I understand is moved into the restitution phase post war where both nations sit at the table and dole out various legal requirements, PW transfers and the likes. Like a two sided lawsuit but instead of just money it's money and human lives.

Which is nice.

The part of the article we would be most concerned with would probably be:

(d) medical facilities, medical equipment, medical supplies or medical transportation;

This, in my understanding is generally considered to be actual hospitals and field hospitals;

Transport: ambulance, Helicopters and planes;

Medical equipment: critical equipment and tools;

Medical supplies: Supply drops or small deliveries en route to a military unit.

Ultimately, I'm not a lawyer, I just teach some material. If there was an argument as to whether or not it breaches the protocol that would be up to an international criminal court, maybe UN scrutiny? I start to lose the ball around here.

I don't think so. Unless maybe it was fully and instantly reversible at the request of the person in question. Maybe.

Thank you for the level headed response! I generally avoid having these conversations because people don't often react well to me going: "well ackshually..." To you know... Human pain and suffering and the horrors of war.

Hi, this is part of my area of expertise.

Neither nation is a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty of 1997 prohibiting the use of victim operated landmines and booby traps. Nor does either nation recognise the amendments to the Geneva convention made in 1996. Additionally, neither nation is a strict adherent or signatory of many of the Geneva conventions or treaty of the Hague which limit undue suffering. Making this specific act not a war crime.

The boobytrapping of a IFAK (Individual First Aid Kit) we see here adheres to laws outlined in all many of these treaties as they aren't directly interfering with humanitarian aid.

Without citing the specific articles you may not:

• Target unarmed combatants or NGO workers
• Make false surrender (perfidy)
• Target hospitals, schools, religious sites or specified culturally significant sites; any force held within these areas are protected under the articles until hostile action is taken by them which forces the building or site to lose protected civilian status making it a valid military target.
• Create or alter devices and ammunition to cause undue harm. (Aim to maim rather than kill)

And the one we're most concerned with in this conversation:

-Target Red Cross, Red Crescent or associated NGO humanitarian aid. Nor may one booby trap or target Humanitarian aid intended to reach soldiers and civilians.

Do you know what isn't humanitarian aid? A soldier's personal first aid kit. Why? Because anything owned or operated in war or for war does not have protected status and is a valid military target.

Soldiers have been booby trapping magazines, crates and supplies since the Boer War. It is not a war crime by any article or treaty I know of because tools of war are valid military targets.

Every single NATO soldier has these things drilled into their heads. Any competent soldier knows to never ever ever pick up anything the enemy may have left behind because they can and absolutely will leave things behind to fuck you up.

But I want you to go through the list of things you may not do and tell me how many of those the Russians have done. Because it's all of them.

The moral implications for both sides are honestly incredibly horrific.

The chimera was the trapped, transformed and lobotomized soul of a mortal child... Having those experiments lead to the idolized cat girl form on the left still implies the capture and inhumane abuse of a human being's essence forever trapped in a body that doesn't match what their brain wants to be wired to.

Somehow this response became about trans rights. So no. I will not force human beings into cat girl bodies for the benefit of others.