We support Ukraine

[Djmixxx]

Edit : Oh and since you seem so ignorant, for the USA it happened in 2005 and it was Georges W Bush in power, since there was Obama, twice, Trump and Biden, and the stance has evolved positively. Wanna compare with Russia ?

It's a good news! The International Court of Justice began to consider US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq? US repealed "American Service-Members' Protection Act" ?
Can you tell me similar law in Russia? She simply does not comply with the decision, showing that this court is just a show.

[mmmPI]

Edit : Oh and since you seem so ignorant, for the USA it happened in 2005 and it was Georges W Bush in power, since there was Obama, twice, Trump and Biden, and the stance has evolved positively. Wanna compare with Russia ?

It's a good news! The International Court of Justice began to consider US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq? US repealed "American Service-Members' Protection Act" ?
Can you tell me similar law in Russia? She simply does not comply with the decision, showing that this court is just a show.

I'm sorry you missed the thread for support of Afhanistan taliban and Sadam's fanclub ,this is "We support Ukraine thread" I understand you are outraged by violation of internationnal law that causes millions of people to have their life turn dramatic , thousand dying, and so on, thanks you for your contribution in pointing out those warlord behavior.

[Djmixxx]

Ukraine attacked who ?

But is it necessary? I don't remember anyone attacking the US, but US troops invade countries all over the world.

[mmmPI]

The trick is that legally Russia did everything right. But morally, no.

Many experts write about this trick like this:
Russia used this provision of international law, but it cannot be used like that. This is called the duality of the interpretation of the law.

What expert are you talking about ?

https://meduza.io/feature/2022/02/24/pu ... ochemu-net

Inside the article :

Однако в том или ином случае тот факт, что какое-то государство в прошлом поступало неправомерно — что Запад точно делал — не дает права другим государствам тоже действовать неправомерно Особенно настолько неправомерно, как это делает сейчас Россия.

Translation :

However, in one case or another, the fact that a state has acted wrongly in the past—which the West certainly has done—does not entitle other states to act wrongfully as well. Especially as illegal as Russia is doing now.

( doesn't prevent djmix from using the very same argument that is considered not-valid by the person he cites himself )

По моему мнению, юридически это очень однозначный случай — Россия абсолютно четко нарушила международное право, так что Генассамблея примет соответствующую резолюцию.

Translation :

Russia absolutely clearly violated international law, so the General Assembly will adopt an appropriate resolution.

[/quote]

Still can you explain me why you link this article, it doesn't seem to be in line with your first saying, that makes only 1 "expert" and he says twice that the violations are obvious ?

[mmmPI]

But is it necessary? I don't remember anyone attacking the US, but US troops invade countries all over the world.

haven't you seen the images of the twins tower ? , you talked about afghanisthan when the UN had made a resolution it was sort of related in case you weren't born, the same UN whose court of justice condemned the invasion attempts from Russia, Russia was part of it at the time and didn't put veto you know

[Djmixxx]

Edit : Oh and since you seem so ignorant, for the USA it happened in 2005 and it was Georges W Bush in power, since there was Obama, twice, Trump and Biden, and the stance has evolved positively. Wanna compare with Russia ?

It's a good news! The International Court of Justice began to consider US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq? US repealed "American Service-Members' Protection Act" ?
Can you tell me similar law in Russia? She simply does not comply with the decision, showing that this court is just a show.

I'm sorry you missed the thread for support of Afhanistan taliban and Sadam's fanclub ,this is "We support Ukraine thread" I understand you are outraged by violation of internationnal law that causes millions of people to have their life turn dramatic , thousand dying, and so on, thanks you for your contribution in pointing out those warlord behavior.

Strange, I thought that you were outraged that Russia does not comply with international law. It turned out that we both outraged what big country's violating of internationnal law.

[mmmPI]

Strange, I thought that you were outraged that Russia does not comply with international law. It turned out that we both outraged what big country's violating of internationnal law.

I'm outrage at you saying Russia did legally right and morally wrong, because you are obviously liying and being disrespectful like your 650+ comment all on this thread.

You linked one article when there is one person emiting three time the idea that Russia is not acting legally, and if you care to inform yourself, you'd realize it's even illegal according to the law of the Russian federation itself to wage a war of aggression, so there was an attempt at legitimizing it throught the genocide claim, which the official court that deal with genocide examined and condemn the Russian invasion stating that nothing was shown to them to justify anything of that sort

[Djmixxx]

But is it necessary? I don't remember anyone attacking the US, but US troops invade countries all over the world.

haven't you seen the images of the twins tower ? , you talked about afghanisthan when the UN had made a resolution it was sort of related in case you weren't born, the same UN whose court of justice condemned the invasion attempts from Russia, Russia was part of it at the time and didn't put veto you know

The army of Afghanistan attacked the US?

The invasion of the US and its allies in Iraq in 2003, prior to the adoption of the relevant UN resolutions, was illegal from the point of view of international law, Willibrord Davies, head of the Dutch National Independent Commission, said on Tuesday.

The UN resolution is not for everyone.

[mmmPI]

https://meduza.io/feature/2022/02/24/pu ... ochemu-net

Inside the article :

Однако в том или ином случае тот факт, что какое-то государство в прошлом поступало неправомерно — что Запад точно делал — не дает права другим государствам тоже действовать неправомерно Особенно настолько неправомерно, как это делает сейчас Россия.

Translation :

However, in one case or another, the fact that a state has acted wrongly in the past—which the West certainly has done—does not entitle other states to act wrongfully as well. Especially as illegal as Russia is doing now.

(

doesn't prevent djmix from using the very same argument that is considered not-valid by the person he cites himself

)

По моему мнению, юридически это очень однозначный случай — Россия абсолютно четко нарушила международное право, так что Генассамблея примет соответствующую резолюцию.

Translation :

Russia absolutely clearly violated international law, so the General Assembly will adopt an appropriate resolution.

Still can you explain me why you link this article, it doesn't seem to be in line with your first saying, that makes only 1 "expert" and he says twice that the violations are obvious ?
[/quote]

can you read the part i've highlighted ?

[mmmPI]

Comparisons to Western interventions in other countries

Russia has also tried to justify its invasion of Ukraine by comparing its actions to interventions by the United States and its allies during the Kosovo War, the Iraq War, the Libyan Crisis, and the Syrian civil war.

These comparisons have been dismissed as irrelevant because one illegal act does not make a different act legal.[1][4][7] For example, Professors Blum and Modirzadeh have remarked that "these arguments would carry little weight in any court of law" because "even if [they were] true, one illegal use of force does not justify another."[4] Professor Ingrid Wuerth likewise said that Russia's arguments go "nowhere in terms of a legal or moral justification for Russia's own actions," although she agrees with Russia "that other powerful countries have undermined international law's prohibition on the use of force and protections of territorial integrity."[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_ ... of_Ukraine

"legally right" you said

[Djmixxx]

I'm outrage at you saying Russia did legally right and morally wrong, because you are obviously liying and being disrespectful like your 650+ comment all on this thread.

You linked one article when there is one person emiting three time the idea that Russia is not acting legally, and if you care to inform yourself, you'd realize it's even illegal according to the law of the Russian federation itself to wage a war of aggression, so there was an attempt at legitimizing it throught the genocide claim, which the official court that deal with genocide examined and condemn the Russian invasion stating that nothing was shown to them to justify anything of that sort

Well, show in the article of this expert what exactly Russia violated by using Article 51. The expert writes that Russia attacked Ukraine illegally. OK. But why does he write that many countries use Article 51 and the Collective Defense Treaty and no one had a claim until Russia did the same?

The electoral work of the law? Then what kind of law is this

[mmmPI]

I'm outrage at you saying Russia did legally right and morally wrong, because you are obviously liying and being disrespectful like your 650+ comment all on this thread.

You linked one article when there is one person emiting three time the idea that Russia is not acting legally, and if you care to inform yourself, you'd realize it's even illegal according to the law of the Russian federation itself to wage a war of aggression, so there was an attempt at legitimizing it throught the genocide claim, which the official court that deal with genocide examined and condemn the Russian invasion stating that nothing was shown to them to justify anything of that sort

Well, show in the article of this expert what exactly Russia violated by using Article 51. The expert writes that Russia attacked Ukraine illegally. OK. But why does he write that many countries use Article 51 and the Collective Defense Treaty and no one had a claim until Russia did the same?

The electoral work of the law? Then what kind of law is this

That's because there is censorhip in Russia and if you critize the war you go 15 years in jail and meduza is a Russian based website, even if it's labeled foreign agent.

So your justification for saying the invasion attempt of Ukraine is "legally right and morraly wrong" is this article only ? that's seem weak compared to all the other document no ?

[Djmixxx]

Comparisons to Western interventions in other countries

Russia has also tried to justify its invasion of Ukraine by comparing its actions to interventions by the United States and its allies during the Kosovo War, the Iraq War, the Libyan Crisis, and the Syrian civil war.

These comparisons have been dismissed as irrelevant because one illegal act does not make a different act legal.[1][4][7] For example, Professors Blum and Modirzadeh have remarked that "these arguments would carry little weight in any court of law" because "even if [they were] true, one illegal use of force does not justify another."[4] Professor Ingrid Wuerth likewise said that Russia's arguments go "nowhere in terms of a legal or moral justification for Russia's own actions," although she agrees with Russia "that other powerful countries have undermined international law's prohibition on the use of force and protections of territorial integrity."[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_ ... of_Ukraine

"legally right" you said

And once again, legal correctness will not work in a world where the law is used selectively. Lawlessness breeds lawlessness. If there were a clear negative response to the actions of the United States in the form of sanctions against the United States and all aggressor countries, then perhaps many countries would think hard before breaking the law.

[mmmPI]

And once again, legal correctness will not work in a world where the law is used selectively. Lawlessness breeds lawlessness. If there were a clear negative response to the actions of the United States in the form of sanctions against the United States and all aggressor countries, then perhaps many countries would think hard before breaking the law.

What about the law of the Russian federation from 1996 ?

Legality of invasion under domestic criminal codes
See also: Universal jurisdiction

Some commentators noted that in addition to violating international law, the invasion of Ukraine violated some countries' domestic criminal codes, including those of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Poland.[13][14] For example, Article 353 of the Russian Criminal Code prohibits planning, preparing, unleashing, or waging an aggressive war.[66] The criminal codes of Ukraine (article 437), Belarus (article 122), and Poland (article 117) have similar prohibitions. Any country seeking to begin a prosecution under its national laws would need to either have territorial jurisdiction over crimes arising out of the invasion of Ukraine or allow for universal jurisdiction. State immunity doctrines would be another obstacle to prosecution.[13]

Under international criminal law's principle of universal jurisdiction,[67][68] investigations were opened in Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.[69][70]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_ ... of_Ukraine


"many expert believe Putin will win his trial in Russia because of that trick called "death threat to the judge""
" zero expert without rubble in the pocket think Putin could could win a trial anywhere else "

Chapter 34. Crimes Against the Peace and Security Mankind Article

353. Planning, Preparing, Unleashing, or Waging on Aggressive War

1. Planning, preparing, or unleashing an aggressive warShall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of seven to fifteen years.
2. Waging an aggressive war, Shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of 10 to 20 years.

souce : The Criminal Code Of The Russian Federation No. 63-Fz Of June 13, 1996
https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws ... u080en.pdf


" muuu there is no war muuuu muuuu "
"also the war will end one day"
"also everything is legal using this trick"

[mmmPI]

Putin not respecting the Russian law is pretty bad no ?

Why do you keep talking about the USA in the thread in support for Ukraine that is being invaded by Russia ?

You have registered and posted all your post on this thread only doing this, and sometimes even posting videos that call to murder people, i've not forgotten that.

[Djmixxx]

That's because there is censorhip in Russia and if you critize the war you go 15 years in jail and meduza is a Russian based website, even if it's labeled foreign agent.

Medusa Project SIA

Address: A.k. 42, Pasta centrs Sakta, Riga, LV-1051, Latvia

What's is in this Meduza office address of the Russian ?

Now Medusa blocked in Russia. Now it is usually free media from West.

[Djmixxx]

And once again, legal correctness will not work in a world where the law is used selectively. Lawlessness breeds lawlessness. If there were a clear negative response to the actions of the United States in the form of sanctions against the United States and all aggressor countries, then perhaps many countries would think hard before breaking the law.

What about the law of the Russian federation from 1996 ?

Legality of invasion under domestic criminal codes
See also: Universal jurisdiction

Some commentators noted that in addition to violating international law, the invasion of Ukraine violated some countries' domestic criminal codes, including those of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Poland.[13][14] For example, Article 353 of the Russian Criminal Code prohibits planning, preparing, unleashing, or waging an aggressive war.[66] The criminal codes of Ukraine (article 437), Belarus (article 122), and Poland (article 117) have similar prohibitions. Any country seeking to begin a prosecution under its national laws would need to either have territorial jurisdiction over crimes arising out of the invasion of Ukraine or allow for universal jurisdiction. State immunity doctrines would be another obstacle to prosecution.[13]

Under international criminal law's principle of universal jurisdiction,[67][68] investigations were opened in Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.[69][70]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_ ... of_Ukraine


"many expert believe Putin will win his trial in Russia because of that trick called "death threat to the judge""
" zero expert without rubble in the pocket think Putin could could win a trial anywhere else "

Chapter 34. Crimes Against the Peace and Security Mankind Article

353. Planning, Preparing, Unleashing, or Waging on Aggressive War

1. Planning, preparing, or unleashing an aggressive warShall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of seven to fifteen years.
2. Waging an aggressive war, Shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of 10 to 20 years.

souce : The Criminal Code Of The Russian Federation No. 63-Fz Of June 13, 1996
https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws ... u080en.pdf


" muuu there is no war muuuu muuuu "
"also the war will end one day"
"also everything is legal using this trick"

Why do you think such a complicated thing was invented: "special military operation". Where in this law writen about "special military operation"?

[mmmPI]

Medusa Project SIA

Address: A.k. 42, Pasta centrs Sakta, Riga, LV-1051, Latvia

What's is in this Meduza office address of the Russian ?

Now Medusa blocked in Russia. Now it is usually free media from West.

Sorry i just realized meduza had to move away from Russia, it actually happened in 2014, i wonder why, you have any idea ?

https://www-ukrinform-ru.translate.goog ... _tr_pto=sc

[mmmPI]

What about the law of the Russian federation from 1996 ?

Chapter 34. Crimes Against the Peace and Security Mankind Article

353. Planning, Preparing, Unleashing, or Waging on Aggressive War

1. Planning, preparing, or unleashing an aggressive warShall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of seven to fifteen years.
2. Waging an aggressive war, Shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of 10 to 20 years.

souce : The Criminal Code Of The Russian Federation No. 63-Fz Of June 13, 1996
https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws ... u080en.pdf


" muuu there is no war muuuu muuuu "
"also the war will end one day"
"also everything is legal using this trick"

Why do you think such a complicated thing was invented: "special military operation". Where in this law writen about "special military operation"?

I will surprise you, there is no war in Ukraine. If you don't believe me, please find the message about the declaration of war.

The war will end, but what you wrote will remain..

I am need to explain to you the meaning of the words: "official" and "unofficial"?

I didn't support aggression then and I don't support it now. (but it doesn’t matter to you either, since you can’t humanize me, because I’m a bot)

All wars are about resources and zones of influence (all other just a reasons for people).

This way the Russian federation can paid troll to pretend there is no war because it's "unofficial war" hahah super trick, no-one is seeing it coming, such smart cover-up brilliant !

[Djmixxx]

Putin not respecting the Russian law is pretty bad no ?

Why do you keep talking about the USA in the thread in support for Ukraine that is being invaded by Russia ?

You have registered and posted all your post on this thread only doing this, and sometimes even posting videos that call to murder people, i've not forgotten that.

Because what is happening now is not 1+1=2 . Now happens this : 0.456×3454÷654+12-8765

Russia's attack on Ukraine is not as simple as everyone writes. If you needed a war, you can always attack Finland (which defeated the USSR in a war in the last century) or capture Georgia. Quick and easy wars that will raise Putin's rating well