DSP for president 2032
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 16 de Ago, 2024
"Not a step back!"
The Soviets won on the Eastern Front by machine-gunning their own troops if they retreated. I'm not sure whether this is legally a war crime or not, but it sure feels like it ought to be. They also emphasized that to the men men that they would get to have their fill of raping and looting, should they come out victorious and survive. At least, that's how I interpret the Stalin quote to a fellow communist when asked about whether he felt bad about the rape of Berlin.
The USA and UK won on their fronts by bringing a literal fiery apocalypse, incinerating -- and later microwaving, children. The psychological toll on the veterans must have been enormous, and quickly hushed up, for it is a bad look to see a victor weeping.
I heard that it was actually the bravest and strongest Germans who volunteered to conduct massacres, because they did not want their comrades to bear the burden of guilt and trauma. It was also the bravest and strongest who volunteered to become trench raiders during the previous war. During a trench raid, taking prisoners or accepting surrender could both equally place your life at risk. The prisoner's comrades could be alerted, kill you and free your prisoner.
It is much safer for the raider to slit a prisoner's throat silently and move on, only taking captives if they are valuable, or the only defender remaining. The only option was to strike at zero hour, with overwhelming firepower, but I promise this will be the last tasteless Sabaton insert.
I also heard that in the days of sieges, it was considered completely normal for the victorious besiegers to massacre, loot, and rape everyone in the besieged settlement if they did not surrender before the battering ram first touched the gate.
It's safe to say that our perception of what is honorable and ethical have changed significantly since the invention of the television, and even more rapidly and unpredictably with the advent of social media.
I also heard that in the days of sieges, it was considered completely normal for the victorious besiegers to massacre, loot, and rape everyone in the besieged settlement if they did not surrender before the battering ram first touched the gate.
It's safe to say that our perception of what is honorable and ethical have changed significantly since the invention of the television, and even more rapidly and unpredictably with the advent of social media.
The three-day War Crime Olympics hosted in Ukraine and sponsored by Russian oligarchs proved so popular with its Slavic demographics that they have decided to extend its duration indefinitely.
One of the most popular competitions involves the practice of slowly shredding a wounded and unarmed soldier with grenade shrapnel -- to be posted as music video compilations to Telegram for enthusiastic sadists to enjoy. Competitors find themselves purchased, kidnapped, financially pressured, or otherwise creatively press-ganged into an isolated in no-man's-land, caught between a "Not a step back!" doctrine, and a "Not a step forward!" doctrine. I have found that redditors love debating the legality of this sport.
A link, and a link
The consensus is that an artillery shell cannot tell whether it is about to hit an injured, unarmed, or surrendering combatant, and that's why all this is totally okay.
They have also put together a gooning compilation of men killing themselves upon being caught in a drone's camera, and Moscow has further normalized this sport by erecting a monument to the men in said gooning compilation.
The Ukrainians are also big fans of the video game series Dawn of War, and have introduced a requisition point system. Video footage of a confirmed kill will allot points to a unit to purchase new wargear, whether the victim is armed and uninjured or not.
One of the most popular competitions involves the practice of slowly shredding a wounded and unarmed soldier with grenade shrapnel -- to be posted as music video compilations to Telegram for enthusiastic sadists to enjoy. Competitors find themselves purchased, kidnapped, financially pressured, or otherwise creatively press-ganged into an isolated in no-man's-land, caught between a "Not a step back!" doctrine, and a "Not a step forward!" doctrine. I have found that redditors love debating the legality of this sport.
A link, and a link
The consensus is that an artillery shell cannot tell whether it is about to hit an injured, unarmed, or surrendering combatant, and that's why all this is totally okay.
They have also put together a gooning compilation of men killing themselves upon being caught in a drone's camera, and Moscow has further normalized this sport by erecting a monument to the men in said gooning compilation.
The Ukrainians are also big fans of the video game series Dawn of War, and have introduced a requisition point system. Video footage of a confirmed kill will allot points to a unit to purchase new wargear, whether the victim is armed and uninjured or not.
I am not trying to moralize, or taking sides, but merely observing the types of thoughts and conversations that spring up around war. If you have ever watched crimeslop videos, you know that if a person considers themselves a "good person," then they are in a state of psychological comfort and will happily bend laws and facts to suit their image of what a "good person" is in order to remain comfortable. A "good person" does not condone war crimes, no matter how effective -- or even necessary they may be. The question is, who is fooling themselves, and what are the consequences of fooling oneself?
I'm going to let my pal Gemini explain this next part because he did such a good job, and you can tell by my search query that I was feeling a little scatterbrained, so I'll let him take the wheel:
Link, and link
Using the redditor logic from the Ukraine segment, a JDAM cannot tell whether an Iranian girls school has girls in it, or Iranian troops. It sees a building on a military base that can be used by its enemies. If the school contains both girls and troops, then you can either destroy the human shield or accept your defeat.
This is a structurally weak essay because I have not stated "here's what I think, and why you should too." I call upon the secret style of essay writing, "I don't know what to think, and here's why you shouldn't either."
