War crimes

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
251
0
#21
There is none. You can't go to war with Russia. I really don't any sanctions imposed would be of any benefit. The leader of that country is corrupt and evil.
Take it for what it's worth, but my brother works with a guy who grew up with Putin. He says Putin has a Napoleon complex and that's why he's so dangerous. He's still trying to overcome his short stature. Pathetic.
 

Tommy379

Notorious Member
Jan 12, 2016
7,589
1,151
113
#22
I know we lready have a thread on Syria but I have a different scenario to discuss. Chemical weapons are a war crime, as per the Geneva Convention. So this would mean that Russia is aiding and abetting a war criminal. What would be the proper protocol here?
Although the treaties concerning the use of "chemical weapons " was adopted ar a protocol meeting in Geneva, that treaty is an amendment to the the Hague convention. What is called the Hague Convention is a series of Treaties limiting the use of weapons in war and how wars are to be conducted.
What everyone calls the Geneva convention, is a series of Treaties that concerns the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians in a belligerent nation.
It should be noted that only a party nation to the treaty is bound by it.
As far as I can find, Syria never ratified the protocol on the use of chemical and biological weapons.
 
Feb 5, 2017
1,118
36
0
#23
All the assumptions on Assad appear to say that even though he is intelligent enough to have retained power for so long, he is dumb enough to gas his own people, in a random non specific attack, with no strategic reward, and not think that there would be a response to it.

I have no doubt that he would have kept some chemical weapons stored away somewhere.

To me it is just as likely that;
a) a chemical storage depot was ruptured. The small amount of deaths points to non-weaponised sarin gas.
b) some of the chemicals were compromised by anti-government rebels, and they knew if THEY could stage a false flag attack US would use it as a ploy to blame Assad. Of course rebels aren't this ingenious are they?
c) covert ops created a condition for US to attack. They are not capable of that are they? Wait for some airstrikes, and then shoot a chemical loaded mortar into the target area. Make sure the planes that are doing the airstrike are linked to the target airfield.

When a country acts so SWIFTLY without any investigation, and when it has not meant immediate dangers to themselves or personnel, and it is so OBVIOUS it was Assad, I smell a rat.
 
Feb 5, 2017
1,118
36
0
#24
The most vile propaganda used by the Western media, was when almost 2 million Libyans (that is a hell of a lot right), were protesting against bombing by NATO, and this footage was used to tell me and you that they were protesting against Gaddafi. 2 million voices of innocent people, used against them. And what do those people have now, but a destabilised country. Whether Gaddafi was bad or a criminal does not count in this case, because the voices of 2 million people who were mainly pro-Gaddafi supporters, was used AGAINST THEM. And you trust what they tell you still?

Do you know the best way to enforce propaganda in a way that people will believe straight away? Say something that is so absurd that people don't want to not believe it in case they are wrong. Americans were the founders of modern day propaganda, which has been re-coined since the early 1900s as Public Relations.


Sigmund Freud was Edward Bernays uncle.
Manipulating behaviors
Intrigued by Freud's notion that irrational forces drive human behavior, Bernays sought to harness those forces to sell products for his clients. In his 1928 book, "Propaganda," Bernays hypothesized that by understanding the group mind, it would be possible to manipulate people's behavior without their even realizing it. To test this hypothesis, Bernays launched one of his most famous public relations campaigns: convincing women to smoke.

In 1929, it was taboo for women to smoke in public and those who flouted convention were thought to be sexually permissive. Bernays' client was George Washington Hill, president of the American Tobacco Company, who envisioned breaking this taboo to broaden the market for his Lucky Strike brand. Bernays asked Hill for permission to consult with New York's leading psychoanalyst and Freud disciple, Dr. A.A. Brill, and was granted this unusual request.

This was the first but not the last time Bernays would consult with psychoanalysts to help shape his public relations campaigns. When asked what cigarettes symbolized to women, Brill's response was that cigarettes were symbolic of male power.

This is just a small example of the 20th Century art of psycho-analysis and control of the group, herd psychology. And if they can do that with what we buy, they can do that with gaining a pro-war mentality - in an instant. As if they are God's. But we all know there is only one God. Does God enslave us, or does man?

How do you know, when you are pro-something, that it comes from God, and truth, and that you have not been enslaved to think the same as everyone else who is unknowing to what mans capacity is to control man?
 
Feb 5, 2017
1,118
36
0
#25
Propaganda is a powerful weapon in war; it is used to dehumanize and create hatred toward a supposed enemy, either internal or external, by creating a false image in the mind of soldiers and citizens. This can be done by using derogatory or racist terms (e.g., the racist terms "Jap" and "gook" used during WW II and the Vietnam War, respectively), avoiding some words or language or by making allegations of enemy atrocities. Most propaganda efforts in wartime require the home population to feel the enemy has inflicted an injustice, which may be fictitious or may be based on facts (e.g., the sinking of the passenger ship RMS Lusitania by the German Navy in WW I). The home population must also believe that the cause of their nation in the war is just. In NATO doctrine, propaganda is defined as "Any information, ideas, doctrines, or special appeals disseminated to influence the opinion, emotions, attitudes, or behaviour of any specified group in order to benefit the sponsor either directly or indirectly."[SUP][20][/SUP] Within this perspective, information provided does not need to be necessarily false, but must be instead relevant to specific goals of the "actor" or "system" that performs it.
Propaganda is also one of the methods used in psychological warfare, which may also involve false flag operations in which the identity of the operatives is depicted as those of an enemy nation (e.g., The Bay of Pigs invasion used CIA planes painted in Cuban Air Force markings). The term propaganda may also refer to false information meant to reinforce the mindsets of people who already believe as the propagandist wishes. The assumption is that, if people believe something false, they will constantly be assailed by doubts. Since these doubts are unpleasant (see cognitive dissonance), people will be eager to have them extinguished, and are therefore receptive to the reassurances of those in power. For this reason propaganda is often addressed to people who are already sympathetic to the agenda or views being presented. This process of reinforcement uses an individual's predisposition to self-select "agreeable" information sources as a mechanism for maintaining control over populations.