- 4 Posts
- 1.2K Comments
21·2 days agoHumanitarian law is also designed to protect civilian objects, including those indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. Article 29 of the Convention on the law relating to the non-navigational uses of international watercourses [available on http://www.un.org/], adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1997, stipulates:
“International watercourses and related installations, facilities and other works shall enjoy the protection accorded by the principles and rules of international law applicable in international and non-international armed conflict and shall not be used in violation of those principles and rules”.
General protection under the law applicable to armed conflicts extends to more than international watercourses, and the four main prohibitions laid down in that law are worth noting:
the ban on employing poison or poisonous weapons; the ban on destroying, confiscating or expropriating enemy property; the ban on destroying objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population; the ban on attacking works or installations containing dangerous forces.
The four prohibitions, to which should be added the provisions on environmental protection, are expressly mentioned in the instruments relating to international armed conflicts, and the last two are also laid down in the law applicable to non-international armed conflicts. Starvation as a method of warfare is explicitly prohibited regardless of the nature of the conflict, and the concept of objects essential for the survival of the civilian population includes drinking-water installations and supplies and irrigation works. Immunity for indispensable objects is waived only when these are used solely for the armed forces or in direct support of military action. Even then, the adversaries must refrain from any action which could reduce the population to starvation or deprive it of essential water.
https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/water-and-armed-conflicts
61·2 days agoThose two things aren’t mutually exclusive.
One can be a fucking idiot and Putler’s lapdog.
Saying “we don’t know for a fact he’s working for the Russians” is just willful ignorance.
The aforementioned claims by Shvets, which were also a significant basis for Craig Unger’s best-selling book, American Kompromat: How the KGB Cultivated Donald Trump, and Related Tales of Sex, Greed, Power, and Treachery, were also backed by Alnur Mussayev, former head of Kazakhstan’s intelligence service, and Sergei Zhyrnov, an ex-KGB officer living in France.[26] Mussayev also asserted that Trump is compromised:
I have no doubt that Russia has kompromat on the US President, that over the course of many years the Kremlin has been promoting Trump to the post of President of the main world power
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials
I’m not British. :)
They were busy hiding in their bunkers while real countries actually fought and died.
The US refused to enter the war for years because it was afraid.
You can’t help but project, can you?
Also, didn’t you guys lose to a bunch of ricefarmers with sticks and muskets?
also “found him annoying” is a weird euphemism for “stalking while committing multiple hate crimes and threatening” but that’s why L
No, it isn’t. Even if the guy was being a racist asshole, of which there’s no evidence, despite him having filmed the interaction, that doesn’t justify murder. Jesus, this is like talking to a toddler. No, you can’t stab a person to death because you didn’t like him when he was walking home from a bar.
What fkin stalking? Why are you making up shit?
And even if he did, that’s still not an immediate threat to his life that wouldn’t even non-lethal force, let alone lethal force, let alone stabbing him all over five fucking times.
You’re just a shitstirrer though. I don’t believe you’re actually that illiterate. Or American, tbh. No wörries, I like writing. Keep stirring.
Lol, that doesn’t even apply in the US. You’re always going on about this thing called “freedom of speech”.
Perhaps try educating yourself on what that means?
Please describe in the detail which one of the victims actions necessitated him being stabbed five times various locations?
The guy didn’t even use expressions that could be construed as “fighting words” and even if he did, that wouldn’t necessitate being stabbed over it. Wouldn’t hold up even in US court.
In the U.S., the general rule is that “[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another.”[1] In cases involving non-deadly force, this means that the person must reasonably believe that their use of force was necessary to prevent imminent, unlawful physical harm.[2] When the use of deadly force is involved in a self-defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other’s infliction of great bodily harm or death.[3] Most states no longer require a person to retreat before using deadly force. In the minority of jurisdictions which do require retreat, there is no obligation to retreat when it is unsafe to do so or when one is inside one’s own home.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)#General_rule
So what was it, specifically?
Haha, American education strikes again.
Britain’s record since the 1700’s is at 63 victories, 11 defeats, and 10 inconclusive outcomes or stalemates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_wars_involving_the_United_Kingdom
(Also they guy stabbed the victim five times in the torso and legs because he found him annoying, not because he was defending himself.)
Fellas, is stabbing someone five times to kill them after they filmed you and you didn’t like what they were saying, “self-defense”?
On the evening of 3 December 2025, some time before 11:30 pm, Nowak (victim) was walking in the area of Belmont Road in the Portswood suburb of Southampton.He had been drinking at the Hobbit Pub but he was under the drink-drive limit.
Nowak then began filming Vickrum Digwa. Video recovered from Nowak’s phone captured him saying “Hello car” and singing to himself before yawning, while Digwa walked away from him. Nowak continued: “Innit bad man, what bad man. You’re a bad man, say you’re a bad man, go on.” Digwa, still walking away in the Snapchat video, replied: “I am a bad man” Digwa inflicted five “stab wounds or cuts” on Nowak, with the 21-centimetre (8.3 in) Kirpan, a Sikh ceremonial knife he was carrying, including a fatal wound to the chest and additional wounds to his legs.
In a backpack, yeah, I wouldn’t worry as someone from Northern Europe.
On my belt though? Again, I wouldn’t worry… if I’m not on public transport and instead hiking in the woods or on my way there with boots and whatnot.
Wearing Friday bests in public transport with a large knife on my belt? Yeah I expect it wouldn’t be too long for someone to contact the authorities. Especially if you were just hanging out in public, displaying it.
And by knife I mean something like this
No-one would be bothered about a Swiss Army tool in your pocket, though.
It all started when Eisenhower let Billy Graham in the White House because, " what can a little prayer breakfast hurt?"
Also, he changed the official national motto from “E Pluribus Unum” (out of many, one) to “In God We Trust”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
The first postage stamps with the motto appeared in 1954. A law passed in July 1955 by a joint resolution of the 84th Congress (Pub. L. 84–140) and approved by President Dwight Eisenhower requires that “In God We Trust” appear on all American currency.
22·1 month agoCan they perspire like people?
Because if not, then they can’t really keep up.
But now I have filled it with substance
I know what you mean, but it’s still punny
^because ^of ^the ^previous ^copious ^substance ^use
It wasn’t the cannabis. It was “Went all day with very little food/water” 99%.
What you describe as your daily dose I’ve literally eaten for breakfast and then doubled the dose a few hours later, then ate even more. Jelly, not chocolates or complex edibles. And I made them into a drink first for quicker absorption.
I also smoked 3-5g daily during that.
It’s not the cannabis.
Shouldn’t be vitamin D with that amount of sun, tbh.
15 min of sun exposure 2-3 times a week even when wearing a t-shirt should be sufficient for most white people.
Perhaps it could’ve been some sort of underlying vitamin D production issue, so that he knew he sort of wanted it, but his body just didn’t produce it despite sun exposure.
But yeah you don’t need to literally tan yoself to get sufficient sun exposure for vitamin d, even at higher latitudes.
Never even suspected? Have you seen literally any video where he utters a sentence or more?
You know he literally had worms in his brain? That’s not emphasis. Literally literally.
Because Trump is Putlers lapdog obviously
Been there, done that.
Didn’t break a window, just hung on a doorhandle.
The most fucked up thing is salvia has reverse tolerance. The more you use it the stronger it will be.
Yeah this, salvia is anything but some light recreational fun.
Or anything that might help with mental problems.
Last time I went the spirits kicked me out for being too much of a noob to their realm. But that was like 15-20 years ago.
No, just too delusional to accept that forcing a 14-year old girl to suck your weird mushroom dick is actually rape and pedophilia.
I’m uncertain of the specifics, 14 may be shooting high idk.
This is why I stopped playing ARC. Felt like it was just conditioning to prefer shooting-on-sight than being friendly. That or being a sociopath and lying and shooting someone in the back.
Neither of which are properties I like to even play pretend having.
You’re very correct in your comment, btw. Nowadays US uses methods that condition people so well that the shoot-to-kill amount of soldiers is like ~95%. In WWII (and everything preceding it) it was roughly 2% of men who were quite literally psychopaths (not in the criminal sense, but a sense of being able to turn off their empathy, many surgeons and ceos belong to this group of ppl). Only <25% of soldiers in a position to fire at the enemy actually shot at them. About 1% of US fighter pilots accounted for ~50% their kills.
Lindybeige has what I think is a fairly good video on the subject.
Shooting to kill - how many men can do it