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?

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.

Capitalism breeds innovation

I think it’s much easier to discover new content on Lemmy.

Pretty sure that anti-anti-fascism is just straight-up a Nazi trope.

How is it remotely sane to give support to any candidate who backs an ongoing genocide? It’s only sane to do so if you’re apathetic to the said victims of genocide and know that their ghosts won’t affect you after they’ve been murdered by the politicians you’ve elected.

If there are 2 buttons, and both will result in the commission of Genocide, you don’t press either button. This is why this meme wouldn’t work in its usual context if the buttons said that.

Any voter or potential voter who has moral principles and values should withhold support for any candidate who supports or enables the most serious crime known to humanity.

If a political opponent of Adolf Hitler was vying for election in Germany in 1932 or 1933, and that political opponent also had the same views towards Jews and/or other ethnic, racial, religious and national groups as Adolf Hitler, with the same intention to commit and use the power of their office to facilitate genocide against those groups as the NSDAP has, you don’t vote for that other candidate, even if they maintain free elections within a fascist Germany. On principle, every person has a moral responsibility not to support, nor facilitate the crime of Genocide. A true democracy allows for true political expression of the population and doesn’t force its electorate to back a Genocide.

I hope I’m not being OTT or patronizing. When talking about an ongoing Genocide against a group it’s off to reduce the (unfortunately) political issue of Genocide prevention to the less serious language used in US domestic politics. And there ought not to be a reason why Palestine is less important than Ukraine or Russian influence in Europe. I mean Palestine is fucked right now and has been since 1948. Why would European people let Palestine be fucked for decades since it doesn’t affect Europe but care about Ukraine since it does? I dunno such a shit situation.

I think the South African team presented their arguments extremely well. I wonder what extreme Oct. 7 atrocity propaganda Israel has prepared to show the UN’s highest court tomorrow. Surely that’s all they can do since they haven’t been able to refute any single argument presented by South Africa. Initially, each side was given 2 hours to make statements, Israel requested an extension to 3 hours.

All they had to do was play back the Zionist’s own statements to prove they were genocidal. So far they’ve claimed that Hamas is the party committing genocide (ridiculous), but as was explained by South Africa, they are not a state party and so aren’t subject to the Genocide Convention.

Vaughan Lowe argued strongly that nothing can possibly merit a response of Genocide in any context. This simple fact must expose whatever attempt to reframe themselves as victims that Israel will try to pull tomorrow.

What I think will happen is that the court will find they are committing genocide, and then all Western leaders will say that they disagree with the conclusion the ICJ/ICC found.

So much nonsense has been flung around by Israel and its supporters in the last few months, I don’t see why they’d suddenly want to return to some semblance of logic and reason just because their obvious crimes have been formally recognised.

OK so now they’ve all been reinstated and Elon Musk started talking about how he’s a bastion of free speech again! Tulsi Gabbard approves!

I looked up the squirrel’s other social media after they got banned because I liked his posts. He has Instagram as well. I hope the Fediverse will continue becoming less and less of a fringe thing. I noticed some of the other people on the list have a Bluesky account but I’ve not really heard much about it.