Ukraine is a slaughterhouse': Amal Clooney describes war crimes in speech to UN – video

 

Human rights lawyer addresses economic and social council at the UN on the situation in Ukraine. Clooney is a part of a legal taskforce advising Ukraine on 'securing accountability' for war crimes that could be pursued at a national level as well as at institutions such as the international criminal court 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2022/apr/28/ukraine-is-a-slaughterhouse-amal-clooney-describes-war-crimes-in-speech-to-un-video?

 

“We have credible information that a Russian military unit operating in the vicinity of Donetsk executed Ukrainians who were attempting to surrender, rather than detaining them,” Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice Beth Van Schaack said at the UN today.

1 hour ago, Nojohndoe said:

I agree that  "simplification"  is probably the  singular "forte" of the vociferous clique that expound in massive  volumes of  verbage opinions of collective appeal to and for "virtual" high fives while  ignoring the actuality of geopolitical complexity.

Puerile attempts at deflection in support of simplistic opinion do nothing to offer content worthy of  consideration.  No more so than the equally puerile expressed opinions of fellows to the  "ever so righteously politically  correct club" who automatically and in virtual unison deign anyone who fails or questions their collective opinion to be sympathetic to Putin et al ! Defined ignorants !

There is no geopolitical  simplification  in the "situation" when and where the majority of Nations object to a minority assuming a mandate which in terms of global ramifications that minority has no right to inflict, never has, and now due to potential global armageddon continues to pursue .

In reality is there one side in this conflict that can honestly claim innocence ? 

There is undeniably one side that unreserved in demonstrating inhumane acts .

A remote  faction of the "Other "side seems  quite content to  assist  a prolonged contest .

 

 

Your comments are the gifts that keep on giving. For example:

 

"I agree that  "simplification"  is probably the  singular "forte" of the vociferous clique that expound in massive  volumes of  verbage opinions of collective appeal to and for "virtual" high fives while  ignoring the actuality of geopolitical complexity."

 

I particularly enjoyed "verbage opinions of collective appeal." You do a mean imitation of a bot.

But as usual, while your comments certainly don't lack in attacks on character, they are remarkably short on facts.

 

And just because a situation is complicated that doesn't justify phrases like "verbage opionions of collective appeal" or run-on sentences. Believe it or not, it is possible for some to write clearly about complicated situations.  If, in fact, the Russian invasion is a complicated situation. Which it basically is not.

 

 But I will concede that at in the following sentence you do at least make a recognizable reference to what you allege is a fact:

 

"There is no geopolitical  simplification  in the "situation" when and where the majority of Nations object to a minority assuming a mandate which in terms of global ramifications that minority has no right to inflict, never has, and now due to potential global armageddon continues to pursue ."

 

First off, out of 191 nations in the UN a total of 141 nations demanded that Russia immediately end its military operations in Ukraine.  Another 35 nations abstained. The countries that voted against the resolution are Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea, Syria, and, of course, Russia.. That's an inspiring Gang of 4 that supports Russia.

 

And on April 7 a resolution of the UN general assemply passed to suspend Russia from the UN Human Rights Council.

 

And please do share with us facts to support your assertion that the majority of nations object to materiel support from many countries to assist the Ukrainian military forces. Somehow, I don't hold out much hope that you'll produce them.

 

The petty bickering etc between certain parties is becoming very tiresome.

I would stronlgy suggest you either ignore each other or stay out of the topic.

The alternative is you will BOTH be removed if this persists beyond this notice.

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I suggest that those that benefit from war, eg arms manufacturers and their shareholders, would be more than willing to assist a prolonged contest.

Seems to me that it has been forgotten that the western world's economies are in the <deleted>, and that a lot of people have no idea of what a world war would actually involve in the way of collective misery. I see no other reason for all the sabre rattling going on. For those that have no experience of actual military conflict I recommend reading about the bombing of Hamburg and Tokyo during WW2.

exactly. let's push the Ruzzians out of Ukraine quickly.

8 hours ago, Nojohndoe said:

I agree that  "simplification"  is probably the  singular "forte" of the vociferous clique that expound in massive  volumes of  verbage opinions of collective appeal to and for "virtual" high fives while  ignoring the actuality of geopolitical complexity.

Puerile attempts at deflection in support of simplistic opinion do nothing to offer content worthy of  consideration.  No more so than the equally puerile expressed opinions of fellows to the  "ever so righteously politically  correct club" who automatically and in virtual unison deign anyone who fails or questions their collective opinion to be sympathetic to Putin et al ! Defined ignorants !

There is no geopolitical  simplification  in the "situation" when and where the majority of Nations object to a minority assuming a mandate which in terms of global ramifications that minority has no right to inflict, never has, and now due to potential global armageddon continues to pursue .

In reality is there one side in this conflict that can honestly claim innocence ? 

There is undeniably one side that unreserved in demonstrating inhumane acts .

A remote  faction of the "Other "side seems  quite content to  assist  a prolonged contest .

 

 

 The country that was invaded can claim innocence, Russia is clearly committing many war crimes, and I don't know anyone who wants the conflict to drag on, though some think it will.

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I suggest that those that benefit from war, eg arms manufacturers and their shareholders, would be more than willing to assist a prolonged contest.

Seems to me that it has been forgotten that the western world's economies are in the <deleted>, and that a lot of people have no idea of what a world war would actually involve in the way of collective misery. I see no other reason for all the sabre rattling going on. For those that have no experience of actual military conflict I recommend reading about the bombing of Hamburg and Tokyo during WW2.

"I see no other reason for all the sabre rattling going on."

 

Seriously?  You can think of no other reasons to oppose Russia's invasion of a neighboring country other than the opportunity to sell arms?

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

The country that was invaded can claim innocence, Russia is clearly committing many war crimes, and I don't know anyone who wants the conflict to drag on, though some think it will.

Quite possibly.

 

 

 

 

Know the enemy.

Putin's New Russia chillingly like Hitler's Old Germany.

This is NOT hyperbole. 

Putin's intention is indeed genocidal. 

 

Putin’s Russia has crossed a threshold: It now looks like 1933 Germany (msn.com)

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Nothing to stop Canada declaring war on Russia as an independent force, or is the response going to be restricted to making speeches in parliament?

I normally ignore your inane comments following my posts as they add so little to this thread but I'll make an exception on this case.

 

A sovereign nation's law makers making a decision on a legal matter regarding definitions of crimes does not mean it is about to declare war independently. Canada happens to be now the third country to declare genocide being committed by the Russians and that is a decision they took based on the evidence they had to hand.

 

Ratcheting up the war rhetoric is much the same as the Kremlin line, its like you want it to happen. 

 

Thats me signed out of further replies to you until you start offering something of value to this important thread.

Some baiting posts and replies have been removed

The US House of Representatives has overwhelmingly backed legislation making it easier to export military equipment to Ukraine, reviving an act that helped defeat Hitler in WWII.

The House passed the "Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022" today and will go to the White House for President Joe Biden to sign into law.

During WWII, the program allowed the US to lend or lease military equipment to its allies.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-29/ukraine-russia-war-live-updates-putin-zelenskyy-mariupol-kyiv/101015702?utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_news_web#live-blog-post-1210842323

UK to send 8,000 soldiers to eastern Europe on expanded exercises

 

About 8,000 British army troops will take part in exercises across eastern Europe to combat Russian aggression in one of the largest deployments since the cold war.

Dozens of tanks will be deployed to countries ranging from Finland to North Macedonia this summer under plans that have been enhanced since Russia invaded Ukraine.

Joining them will be tens of thousands of troops from Nato and the Joint Expeditionary Force alliance, which includes Finland and Sweden

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/28/uk-to-send-8000-soldiers-to-eastern-europe-on-expanded-exercises

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

"I see no other reason for all the sabre rattling going on."

 

Seriously?  You can think of no other reasons to oppose Russia's invasion of a neighboring country other than the opportunity to sell arms?

My comment was not related to opposing, but to the apparent desire of some to get NATO involved militarily, which would have  negative consequences for the countries not currently with troops in Ukraine, or do you think Russia would not escalate if western countries did in fact send troops in?

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

My comment was not related to opposing, but to the apparent desire of some to get NATO involved militarily, which would have  negative consequences for the countries not currently with troops in Ukraine, or do you think Russia would not escalate if western countries did in fact send troops in?

NATO is involved militarily.

 

I can see reasons for NATO to get more deeply involved other than the opportunity for military sales.

 

I don't know what Russia would do if NATO sent troops in.  I don't think that will happen unless Russia further escalates the mess it already got into.

What I regard as a symbolic act of terror by Putin that was purposefully intended to show Secretary-General -Antonio Guterres what he really thinks of the talks they had the day before in Moscow, absolutely disgusting.

 

After Guterres trip to Moscow for a meeting with Putin at the 20 meter long table for attempts at peace talks and a humanitarian corridor for those trapped in Mariupol, he then travels to Ukraine.

 

Guterras: "I imagine my family in one of those homes, now destroyed and black. I see my granddaughters running away in panic. There is no way the war can be acceptable in the 21st century," @antonioguterres said on his visit to the earlier hard-hit #Borodianka near #Ukraine's capital.

 

Putins response, greetings from Russia with missile strikes near the hotel that Guterres is staying at.

 

"UN Secretary General tells me he’s shocked by Russia carrying out a missile attack on Kyiv while he’s on the city for talks with President Zelensky. Ukraine calls it a ‘heinous act of barbarism’ - and a ‘postcard from Moscow’

 

 

Meanwhile Russia ups the anti again threatening Nuclear strikes

Off topic quoted reply of an off topic post  removed

 

If the member responsible for deflecting hijacking, baiting and bickering in this topic does not stop  you will be banned from it.

The advancements in Military technology over these same 75 years you refer to obviate the need for large conscripted (hard men) armies.

 

Drones are one example, man portable anti-tank weapons are another.

 

Modern militaries frequently demonstrate their effectiveness, despite a dirth of ‘1930s depression’ recruits. The Ukrainian military being an example, they are demonstrably ‘up to it’.

 

Russia is being reminded of precisely why this war can’t be fought with the tactics of the last war.

 

24 minutes ago, heybruce said:

NATO is involved militarily.

 

I can see reasons for NATO to get more deeply involved other than the opportunity for military sales.

 

I don't know what Russia would do if NATO sent troops in.  I don't think that will happen unless Russia further escalates the mess it already got into.

There was a time when I didn't think NATO would consider sending ground troops in.  I still doubt that would happen on a large scale.  But Russia has exceeded the bounds of decency, even wartime decency.  If it keeps up, I can see NATO sending cruise missiles into Russia targeting military hardware and installations.  Not nukes, but conventional weapons.  If that happens, it would be up to Putin and whether HE decides to escalate beyond Ukraine borders.  Putin may be crazy and cruel, but he's not stupid.  He knows that he's totally outgunned by NATO.  I doubt he'd do anything other than churn out more rhetoric and threats. 

2 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

There was a time when I didn't think NATO would consider sending ground troops in.  I still doubt that would happen on a large scale.  But Russia has exceeded the bounds of decency, even wartime decency.  If it keeps up, I can see NATO sending cruise missiles into Russia targeting military hardware and installations.  Not nukes, but conventional weapons.  If that happens, it would be up to Putin and whether HE decides to escalate beyond Ukraine borders.  Putin may be crazy and cruel, but he's not stupid.  He knows that he's totally outgunned by NATO.  I doubt he'd do anything other than churn out more rhetoric and threats. 

Actually he is stupid at least sometimes. Like choosing this war in the first place. Incredibly stupid. Also he may be very ill.

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Actually he is stupid at least sometimes. Like choosing this war in the first place. Incredibly stupid. Also he may be very ill.

He badly miscalculated....mostly because his military and intel leaders were telling him what he wanted to hear.  So yeah, perhaps stupid in having only yes-men around him.  But that's what dictators do. 

6 hours ago, Berkshire said:

There was a time when I didn't think NATO would consider sending ground troops in.  I still doubt that would happen on a large scale.  But Russia has exceeded the bounds of decency, even wartime decency.  If it keeps up, I can see NATO sending cruise missiles into Russia targeting military hardware and installations.  Not nukes, but conventional weapons.  If that happens, it would be up to Putin and whether HE decides to escalate beyond Ukraine borders.  Putin may be crazy and cruel, but he's not stupid.  He knows that he's totally outgunned by NATO.  I doubt he'd do anything other than churn out more rhetoric and threats. 

I'm less optimistic than you about Putin.

The move to invade Ukraine was clearly stupid.

I'm still thinking his thinking is impaired for some reason.

Many sources claim he has parkinson's and it was also reported that he is under treatment by an oncologist (cancer doctor).

Some medications against parkinson's have side effects such as causing overconfidence.

Whatever the reason, medication, a brain tumor or whatever, I am convinced that Putin doesn't think straight and that means there is a risk he will make more foolish decisions.

11 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Know the enemy.

Putin's New Russia chillingly like Hitler's Old Germany.

This is NOT hyperbole. 

Putin's intention is indeed genocidal. 

 

Putin’s Russia has crossed a threshold: It now looks like 1933 Germany (msn.com)

correct... as I pointed out earlier, the number of similarities between Putin'z Ruzzia today and Hitler's Nazi Germany is already staggering and still growing.

3 minutes ago, tgw said:

correct... as I pointed out earlier, the number of similarities between Putin'z Ruzzia today and Hitler's Nazi Germany is already staggering and still growing.

Understandable that so many people are resistant to believe that such total evil can still happen in our modern times but it is very clear that it is.

Poland sends 200 tanks to Ukraine

Poland has sent hundreds of tanks to Ukraine as part of renewed heavy weapons shipments to help it win the war against Russia.

Warsaw has sent more than 200 T-72s - originally produced by the Soviet Union - into Ukraine in recent weeks, the country's national radio broadcaster said today, along with mobile artillery, drones and rocket launchers as part of a $1.6bn package.

Oleksiy Arestovych, a Ukrainian secret service veteran-turned presidential adviser, acknowledged his military is suffering 'serious losses' on battlefields in the east but insisted that Russia's casualties are 'much, much worse'.

 

Daily Mail

 

1 hour ago, Chris.B said:

Poland sends 200 tanks to Ukraine

Poland has sent hundreds of tanks to Ukraine as part of renewed heavy weapons shipments to help it win the war against Russia.

Warsaw has sent more than 200 T-72s - originally produced by the Soviet Union - into Ukraine in recent weeks, the country's national radio broadcaster said today, along with mobile artillery, drones and rocket launchers as part of a $1.6bn package.

Oleksiy Arestovych, a Ukrainian secret service veteran-turned presidential adviser, acknowledged his military is suffering 'serious losses' on battlefields in the east but insisted that Russia's casualties are 'much, much worse'.

 

Daily Mail

 

well done Poland !

21 minutes ago, tgw said:

well done Poland !

Yeah so quick.

3 hours ago, tgw said:

I'm less optimistic than you about Putin.

The move to invade Ukraine was clearly stupid.

I'm still thinking his thinking is impaired for some reason.

Many sources claim he has parkinson's and it was also reported that he is under treatment by an oncologist (cancer doctor).

Some medications against parkinson's have side effects such as causing overconfidence.

Whatever the reason, medication, a brain tumor or whatever, I am convinced that Putin doesn't think straight and that means there is a risk he will make more foolish decisions.

Agreed, I think Putin will press the button rather than lose this war. He is dying and doesn't want to see his legacy as a loser who destroyed what was left of the empire. DW TV yesterday was saying there was a prevailing attitude that maybe, with some sanctions, that they could deal with Russia but now realise that they can't.

22 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Agreed, I think Putin will press the button rather than lose this war. He is dying and doesn't want to see his legacy as a loser who destroyed what was left of the empire. DW TV yesterday was saying there was a prevailing attitude that maybe, with some sanctions, that they could deal with Russia but now realise that they can't.

He would lose his family, his girlfriend and her family in that case. Also, most of the Russian Orcs will die in the nuclear winter to follow.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Chris.B said:

He would lose his family, his girlfriend and her family in that case. Also, most of the Russian Orcs will die in the nuclear winter to follow.

 

what if Putin has less than 12 months to live anyway?

 

8 minutes ago, tgw said:

what if Putin has less than 12 months to live anyway?

 

The question is does he really care about any other lives other than his own including family  The jury is out.