What I meant was just that a full scale invasion must take a long period of time and state resources to prepare. I think that western governments would’ve had intelligence that Russia had a plan to invade Ukraine, and the mobilisation of troops would’ve been seen as the preparation by Russia to invade Ukraine. The article frames the invasion as a response to Zelensky refusing to be in a militarily weaker position against Russia. Is it not fair to view Russian troops in Donbas (internationally recognised as part of Ukraine) as a possible threat to the security of Ukrainian territory west of the Donbas? There’d have to be trust that Putin wouldn’t violate Ukraine’s territory for them to distance themselves from NATO in their situation. You’re right that I wasn’t clear when I read back.

Historically the US has committed an ocean of war crimes and they might have even exaggerated the extent of war crimes committed by Russia but I’m confident that groups like Wagner will have committed war crimes in Ukraine, and also the ICC issued an arrest warrant against Putin for the forcible transfer of children to occupied territory. I didn’t mean to say you shouldn’t support the Russian operation, but isn’t critical support in a context where you view NATO as the aggressor in this case more understandable? That’s what I meant, maybe I sound like a lib. I just don’t really seem 100% convinced by arguments I see about Ukraine on lemmygrad tbh.

Zelensky instead increased weapons imports from NATO countries, which was the last straw for Putin. So, on Feb. 21, 2022, Russia recognized the independence of Donbas, deployed troops there for “peacekeeping,” and demanded Zelensky renounce his quest for NATO military assistance and membership.

When Zelensky again refused, Putin massively expanded his military offensive on Feb. 24. Intentionally or not, Zelensky had provoked Russian aggression, although that obviously does not excuse Moscow’s subsequent war crimes.

So is this article implying that either a) the 2022 ‘SMO’ was planned in a very short amount of time (3 days or so?) in response to Zelensky accepting NATO arms or b) that the “invasion” was already planned for significantly longer by Russia and that Putin would have retracted his plan to launch the invasion over one decision by Zelensky between 21-24 Feb 2022? How would Zelensky look if he rejected arms while in immediate anticipation of an invasion planned by Russia? The subsequent operation really undermines the pretext that Russian soldiers were deployed to Donbass for peacekeeping (the author placed the words in quotation marks).

The author in this passage accuses Russia of war crimes and claims that it’s obvious they aren’t excused by Russia being provoked. When you say that you uncritically support Russia’s “invasion” of Ukraine you didn’t mean to include war crimes in that though, right? I just feel uneasy about discourse which seems (to me) to be too generous towards Russia’s narrative given their war crimes.

Fair enough I just thought it was telling that even ChatGPT is able to identify this as genocidal and compared it with the Rwandan and Srebrenica genocides, despite being heavily trained on biased data from the NYT for example. That’s why I included AI content. I just used Google translate to post the text in English and chatGPT. Original is here.

Comparison to Past Cases of Crimes Against Humanity To assess how the message compares to past international legal cases, we can analyze precedents from Rwanda (1994), Bosnia (1992-1995), and Myanmar (2017-present)—all cases where crimes against humanity, including extermination, forced displacement, and persecution, were prosecuted.

1. Rwanda (1994) – International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) Key Case: Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu (1998)

What happened? The Rwandan genocide saw the systematic extermination of Tutsis by Hutu extremists, encouraged through incitement in media and political speeches. Legal ruling: Akayesu was convicted of extermination and incitement to genocide for statements that encouraged the killing and displacement of Tutsis. The ICTR ruled that psychological terror and dehumanizing rhetoric (e.g., calling Tutsis “cockroaches”) were crimes against humanity. Comparison to the message: The statement “the map of the world will not change if all the people of Gaza disappear” is similar to the rhetoric used in Rwanda, where Tutsis were told they were insignificant and would not be missed. The threat of forced displacement (“forcibly displaced whether you like it or not”) parallels Rwanda, where Tutsis were driven from their homes before being killed. Relevance:

The message reflects dehumanization and the suggestion of extermination, which were central in the Rwanda case. If leaders or media figures spread this message, it could be seen as incitement to genocide—just as radio broadcasts in Rwanda were.

2. Bosnia (1992-1995) – International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Key Case: Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić (2016)

What happened? The Bosnian Serb leadership, under Radovan Karadžić, engaged in ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims. Civilians were forcibly removed, concentration camps were set up, and the Srebrenica massacre (8,000+ killed) was carried out. Legal ruling: Karadžić was convicted of genocide, extermination, persecution, and forcible transfer of populations. His speeches and policies, where he warned Bosniaks that they would be wiped out, were cited as proof of intent to destroy a group in whole or in part. Comparison to the message: The threat of extermination (“there is only a little left and the game is over”) resembles Karadžić’s threats to Bosnian Muslims. The suggestion that Gaza is abandoned by the world is similar to how Serb leaders told Bosniaks that no one would save them. The statement about forced displacement reflects the ICTY’s ruling that the forcible transfer of civilians is a crime against humanity. Relevance:

The rhetoric of inevitable destruction and displacement is strikingly similar to what was used in Bosnia. If backed by state policies, this could be direct evidence for crimes against humanity or genocide.

3. Myanmar (2017-Present) – International Court of Justice (ICJ) and ICC Key Case: The Gambia v. Myanmar (2019)

What happened? The Rohingya Muslim minority faced mass killings, forced displacement, and persecution by Myanmar’s military. Over 700,000 people were forcibly expelled, their villages were burned, and widespread sexual violence and killings occurred. Legal ruling: The ICJ found Myanmar’s actions constituted genocide. The forcible expulsion of the Rohingya and the statement by military leaders that they were unwanted and had to leave were used as evidence. Comparison to the message: The threat of forced displacement in the message matches Myanmar’s statements before ethnic cleansing operations. The suggestion that no one will help Gaza (“no one will feel you or ask about you”) mirrors how Myanmar officials claimed no one would care about the Rohingya. Relevance:

The international legal community already views forced displacement as a crime against humanity, and the message reflects similar rhetoric used in Myanmar before mass expulsions. The ICJ is currently holding Myanmar accountable, which shows that such statements are not just rhetoric—they can be used as evidence in trials. Final Analysis: Could This Be Prosecuted? The message shares clear similarities with past cases where crimes against humanity were prosecuted, particularly in:

Rwanda (1994) – Incitement, dehumanization, threats of extermination. Bosnia (1992-1995) – Forced displacement, inevitability of destruction, ethnic persecution. Myanmar (2017-Present) – Forced expulsion, mass killing rhetoric, claims that the world will ignore the victims. If such statements were issued by government officials, military figures, or media organizations, they could serve as evidence of crimes against humanity or genocide in an international court.

Crimes Against Humanity in the Context of the Message The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) (1998) defines crimes against humanity in Article 7. These are serious violations of human rights committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. The message you provided contains elements that could be categorized as multiple crimes against humanity, based on the legal definitions.

1. Extermination (Article 7(1)(b)) Definition:

“Extermination” includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, such as deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population.

How the Message Fits:

The message suggests that the world will not care if the people of Gaza disappear (“the map of the world will not change if all the people of Gaza disappear from existence”). It implies an impending large-scale elimination of civilians (“there is only a little left and the game is over”). The reference to abandonment and suffering (“no one will feel you or ask about you”) suggests an intent to let civilians die under conditions of hardship, which could be construed as extermination. 2. Deportation or Forcible Transfer of Population (Article 7(1)(d)) Definition:

“Deportation or forcible transfer of population” means forced displacement of people from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law.

How the Message Fits:

The message explicitly mentions forced displacement (“Trump’s forced plan, which will force you to be forcibly displaced whether you like it or not”). Forced displacement of civilians in an armed conflict without military necessity is a crime against humanity and a war crime under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute. The Geneva Conventions (Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention) also prohibit the deportation of civilians from occupied territories. 3. Persecution (Article 7(1)(h)) Definition:

“Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity.”

How the Message Fits:

The message targets a specific national/ethnic group (the people of Gaza). It promotes the idea that their suffering is inevitable and that no one will help them. It presents a choice between submission or destruction (“whoever wants to win before it is too late”), which can be interpreted as an attempt to strip them of their fundamental rights. The ICC has ruled in cases like Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić that acts of persecution do not require immediate killing—systematic oppression, forced displacement, and the denial of basic rights are enough. 4. Other Inhumane Acts (Article 7(1)(k)) Definition:

Acts intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or mental or physical health.

How the Message Fits:

The psychological impact of telling a group that they will be forcibly removed or annihilated can amount to an inhumane act. The message creates fear, hopelessness, and distress among civilians, which could be argued as intentional infliction of mental harm. In past cases, international courts have ruled that threats of mass violence, forced exile, and abandonment to suffering qualify as inhumane acts. Conclusion The message contains elements of multiple crimes against humanity, including extermination, forced displacement, persecution, and other inhumane acts. If such statements are linked to actual policies or military actions, they could serve as evidence in an international tribunal (e.g., ICC or ICJ).

Lemmy was developed by people with far left political views and the main reason Lemmy got as popular was from communities migrating to it from political subs which were restricted and/or banned on other platforms.

So much for the international rules based order then. Now when Russia or China or Iran or anyone else break international law, the USA can only be ridiculed for putting out a condemnation.

The atrocities committed by the USA in South East Asia aren’t in living memory for a lot of people, and happened back when we had less access to information. So I can somewhat understand why a share of the population held a superficial belief that the USA is on the side of international justice. Now the official and publicly stated policy of the USA is to attack and threaten the body responsible for trying Genocidaires. That’s it, the myth that America loves the rule of law should be dead now, right?

There’s absolutely no question that Israel astroturfs comments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd3CFhLmpP0

Practical procedures and mechanisms to implement the Agreement for the exchange of Israeli hostages and Palestinian Prisoners and the return to a sustainable calm which would achieve a permanent ceasefire between the two sides

1. Stage two preparations:

The parties and the mediators’ objective is to achieve a final consensus to implement the May 27 2024 Agreement on the exchange of hostages and prisoners and return to a sustainable calm which would achieve a permanent ceasefire between the Parties.

All procedures in the first stage will continue in stage 2 so long as the negotiations of the conditions of implementing stage 2 are ongoing and the guarantors of this Agreement shall work to ensure that negotiations continue until an agreement is reached.

2. Israeli forces withdrawal:

Withdrawal of Israeli forces eastwards from densely populated areas along the borders of the Gaza strip, including Wadi Gaza (Netzarim axis and Kuwait roundabout).

The Israeli forces will be deployed in a perimeter (700) metres with an exception at 5 localised points to be increased no more than (400) additional meters that the Israeli side will determine, south and west of the border, and based on the maps agreed upon by both sides which accompany the agreement.

3. Prisoner Exchange:

a. The 9 ill and wounded from the list of 33 will be released in exchange for the release of 110 Palestinian prisoners with life sentences.

b. Israel will release 1000 Gazan detainees from 8 October 2023 that were not involved in 7 October 2023

c. The Elderly (men over 50) from the list of 33 will be released in exchange for an exchange key of 1:3 life sentences + 1:27 other sentences.

d. Ebra Mangesto and Hesham el-Sayed - will be released according to an exchange key of 1:30, as well as 47 Shalit prisoners.

e. A number of Palestinian prisoners will be released abroad or in Gaza based on lists agreed upon between both sides.

4. Philadelphi corridor:

a. The Israeli side will gradually reduce the forces in the corridor area during stage 1 based on the accompanying maps and the agreement between both sides.

b. After the last hostage release of stage one, on day 42, the Israeli forces will begin their withdrawal and complete it no later than day 50.

5. Rafah Border Crossing:

a. The Rafah crossing will be ready for the transfer of civilians and for the wounded after the release of all women (civilian and soldiers). Israel will work toward the readiness of the crossing as soon as the agreement is signed.

b. Israeli forces will redeploy around the Rafah Crossing according to the attached maps.

c. 50 wounded military individuals will be allowed to cross daily accompanied by (3) individuals. Each individual crossing will require Israeli and Egyptian approval.

d. The crossing will be operated based on the August 2024 discussions with Egypt.

6. Exit of ill and wounded civilians:

a. All ill and wounded Palestinian civilians will be allowed to cross via Rafah border crossing, according to section 12 in the 27 May 2024 agreement.

7. Return of unarmed internally displaced (Netzarim Corridor):

a. The return is agreed based on the 27 May 2024 agreement section 3-a and 3-b.

b. On day 7, the internally displaced pedestrians will be allowed to return north, without carrying arms and without inspection via Rashid street. On day 22, they will be allowed to return north from the Salahudin street as well, without inspection.

C. On day 7, vehicles and any non-pedestrian traffic will be allowed to return north of Netzarim corridor after vehicle inspection which will be performed by a private company which will be determined by the mediators in sync with the Israeli side, based on an agreed upon mechanism.

8. Humanitarian aid protocol:

a. Humanitarian aid procedures under the agreement will be done subject to the humanitarian protocol agreed upon under the supervision of the mediators.

I don’t know about that. I doubt this would’ve happened at this time if Kamala Harris won. Palestinians have been hurt so much by the Zionist entity and Trump made a big thing about himself supposedly promoting peace in his campaign, so this might be to placate some of his supporters in the US.

Hamas was never going to be 100% defeated and Netanyahu has wanted to drag the war out for a while.

I don’t know if ‘Israel’ is going to fully honour the deal or not. Reading through it, it seems as though they have room to maintain some form of increased occupation of the Gaza Strip. I really hope that Hamas haven’t agreed to a permanent veiled/obfuscated Israeli occupation of the Netzarim and Philadelphi corridors but unfortunately that is what I suspect might be the case. But I am glad that Palestinians will be able to leave Zionist concentration camps.

From what I’ve heard the political pressure placed on Israel to agree to a ceasefire came from the Trump team - he wanted a ceasefire to be in place before he became president. That’s why it’s agreed for Sunday before his inauguration on Monday.

Yep, I saw that on the talk page and it actually was listed there, but they had to remove it since it “was the only entry that did not have a death toll.”

It should be noted that one of the reasons for removing it was a lack of death toll. Every single entry in the article’s list has a death toll. The Uyghur genocide, when it was listed here, was the only entry that did not have a death toll. Given that the article Uyghur genocide itself had its title changed to Persecution of Uyghurs in China, you should first go there and argue for a restoration of that article’s title. But you should familiarize yourself with the subject matter and the discussion behind the decision here. JasonMacker (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

(I wrote this comment before you edited yours and saw you did the same thing lol)

I’d like to add to your brilliant run-down of reasons why Israel’s actions are provably genocidal, that they have also committed the fifth.

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/fate-baby-and-other-palestinian-children-unknown-after-israeli-army-forcibly-transfers-them-out-gaza-strip-enar

https://www.savethechildren.net/news/palestinian-children-israeli-military-detention-report-increasingly-violent-conditions

No, it’s not true to say that an event is not Genocide just because the party (rightly IMV) accused of Genocide hasn’t blocked 100% of humanitarian aid. Blocking humanitarian aid is illegal under international law.[1][2]

In deciding whether or not the event constitutes Genocide, It matters whether the killings and conditions imposed on the population of the Gaza Strip can be proven to be carried out with genocidal intent. South Africa has already presented ample evidence of statements from Israeli leaders which are/seem tantamount to statements of genocidal intent, and the ICJ has already ruled that there is a plausible risk of genocide being committed. We are just waiting for the ICJ to make their ruling.

Google gave me an article from The Guardian from 2001.

Secret UK deal freed Pinochet

A new book alleges the former dictator’s release from Britain was brokered between Chile and Downing St.

Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator, was allowed to escape extradition to Spain on 2 March last year because of plans worked out over many months by Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in collaboration with Eduardo Frei, then President of Chile, according to leading Chilean sources. José María Aznar, the conservative Prime Minister of Spain and his Foreign Minister Abel Matutes, were involved in the planning.

The Blair-Frei plan was to prevent Pinochet’s extradition while observing the law. Instead, the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary relied on Britain’s wide discretion on extradition matters.

The plan was conceived in 1999 after it became clear that the Pinochet affair was dragging on far longer than governments expected and came to fruition when British doctors examined the General at Northwick Park Hospital in Harrow, north London, on 5 January last year. Their report allowed Straw to exercise his discretion to release Pinochet on humanitarian grounds even though the former dictator had never said he was too ill to stand trial.

Frei argued to Blair that neither government would benefit if Pinochet were to die in England and that he could be tried in Chilean courts. According to the book, Blair emphasised to Frei that the case was before the courts and the Government could not interfere, adding that any British leader would court grave problems at home if he were seen to interfere with the course of justice. If there were any powers which Government could exercise they would be exercised by a Home Secretary not a Prime Minister, he said. Blair undertook to do what he could within the law provided the exchanges between the two leaders were kept secret. The authors claim that Blair suggested setting up a ‘back channel’, with two people appointed to liaise between the leaders’ private offices.

The contact man between Frei and Blair was Cristian Tolosa, Frei’s press chief, who made six visits to London in the second half of 1999, liaising with Blair’s aide Jonathan Powell at Number 10. Yesterday, Downing Street said that it did not comment on contacts between officials.

https://x.com/CheriJacobus/status/1802345091123544214

deleted by creator

I don’t find your view unreasonable at all. Pro-Democrat people have always been crazy when it comes to losing the election to a Republican and Pro-Republican people have always been crazy when it comes to losing the election to a Democrat.

The really substantial global events such as the Zionist Genocide against the Gaza Strip and the Russia-Ukraine war are more impactful than all the bickering between the 2 parties in the USA. State agencies make plans years in advance before carrying them out so that they can dedicate state resources towards those plans. If there were to be a candidate that caused major disruption to those plans then all efforts would be made to undermine their chance of coming to power.

There’s only a change in rhetoric and framing of major events depending on who wins the election. I don’t live in the USA either but I remember feeling conflicted about how I would have voted were I to have lived there in 2020. Trump is outwardly a racist person who uses similar propaganda tactics as Hitler IMO. He feeds off of people’s anger, scapegoats minorities, creates a sense of ‘community’ among his supporters to make them feel emotionally invested in supporting him, uses ingroup/outgroup politics more heavily, and creates catchy labels to attack his enemies “sleepy Joe”, “crooked Hillary” etc.

Whereas Kamala Harris and Democrats in general (like Obama) are just good at honing in on the most diplomatic language possible to invoke apathy towards all injustices perpetrated by the US government, its allies and corporations. And to be honest, with me I admit that it kind of works. I remember feeling much more passionate about awful shit in the USA when Trump was president compared to Biden. I can’t even imagine the rage I would have felt had Donald Trump justified the bombing of Al-Ahli Hospital by Israel compared to Biden doing the exact same thing.

Which of the two is worse is impossible for me to say, and all Dems who admonish people for voting for Jill Stein and opposing Genocide, blaming them for some imaginary people bleeding out are total clowns. The election ended up being about whether you identify more with Elon Musk and Joe Rogan or with Beyoncé. It’s ok if you don’t fall into either camp.

A final chapter in the 9/11 Commission Report aka the ‘28 pages’ was declassified in 2015/2016 and it details close connections between the State of Saudi Arabia and the al-Qaeda hijackers who perpetrated 9/11. I read them when they were released and from my memory, it revealed that Saudi sorted out flying lessons for the hijackers and provided money to the hijackers. Some of the hijackers had Saudi intelligence and royal family members saved in their phones as contacts. What I took from the release is that it’s very likely 9/11 was planned by Saudi Arabia and that they just used Al-Qaeda as an instrument to carry it out.

“The FBI has received numerous reports from individuals in the Muslim community, dating back to 1999, alleging that al-Bayoumi may be a Saudi intelligence officer…al-Bayoumi met the hijackers at a public place shortly after his meeting with an individual at the Saudi consulate and there are indications in his files that his encounter with the hijackers may not have been accidental. During this same timeframe, al-Bayoumi had extensive contact with Saudi Government establishments in the United States and received financial support from a Saudi company affiliated with the Saudi Ministry of Defense…That company reportedly has ties to Usama Bin Ladin and al-Qaeda.”

https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/the-32-most-important-passages-from-the-un-redacte

I personally believe that people in the US Government knew in advance that 9/11 would happen and had already planned on using it as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, similar to how the Zionist entity is using Oct 7 as a pretext to conduct Genocide against the people of the Gaza strip and to go on a killing spree across the Middle East.

Capitalism breeds innovation