Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

[The SC]

Many updates..

 

[Hack-Hook]

Second Gevena Convention does not cover land combat.

It's Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (II) on Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked of Armed Forces at Sea, 1949

If you read the entire chapter, you will see it mention only the action at sea. Well, at least that's what my wife, a Military and International Law lawyer, who told me that.

well convention I , edition 2016

COMMENTARY OF 2016
CHAPTER II : WOUNDED AND SICK
1313  This chapter is one of the most important in the Convention. The Convention may even be said to rest upon it, since it embodies the essential idea championed by the founders of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, an idea that has dominated all of the Geneva Conventions since 1864 – namely, that the person of the soldier who is wounded or sick, and who is therefore hors de combat, is from that moment inviolable. The wounded and sick, whether friend or foe, must be tended with the same care.

1315  Article 15 complements Article 12 by imposing an obligation ‘to search for and collect’ the wounded and sick in order to remove them from the immediate danger zone and to enable them to receive the necessary medical treatment and care. This is further complemented by Article 18, which contains the kernel of Henry Dunant’s idea for civilians to take action to assist and care for wounded and sick members of the armed forces, whether in response to an appeal by the military commander or spontaneously. A Party to the conflict must consider these options when taking ‘all possible measures’ to search for and collect the wounded and sick and in ensuring that they receive the medical care their condition requires.
ARTICLE 12

Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article [ Link ] , who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.
They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.
Only urgent medical reasons will authorize priority in the order of treatment to be administered.
Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex.
The Party to the conflict which is compelled to abandon wounded or sick to the enemy shall, as far as military considerations permit, leave with them a part of its medical personnel and material to assist in their care.

and 1952 comment on article 12
It should be pointed out in this connection that the notion of "neutrality", a term which in the 1864 text expressed the immunity enjoyed by ambulances, medical personnel, and by implication the wounded themselves, had already been dropped by 1906, The notion in question no doubt conveyed clearly enough that a combatant ceased to be an enemy once he was wounded and therefore harmless, and also the conception of medical personnel as being outside the conflict; but it did not correspond to reality, as the term "neutrality" refers essentially to the abstention of persons who are taking no part in the conflict. In place of this unsuitable and inexact expression it was thought preferable to substitute the notion of respect and protection in all circumstances. The word "respect" (' respecter ') means, according to the Dictionary of the French Academy, "to spare, not to attack" [p.135] (' épargner, ne point attaquer ') (2), whereas "protect" (' protéger ') means "to come to someone's defence, to lend help and support" (' prendre la défense de
quelqu'un, prêter secours et appui '). The introduction of these words made it unlawful for an enemy to attack, kill, illtreat or in any way harm a fallen and unarmed soldier, while it at the same time imposed upon the enemy an obligation to come to his aid and give him such care as his condition required.

 

[Paul2]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1589708178039545856

The two drones which drop 6 81mm mortar bombs are unfortunately busy in Kherson. They would've been immensely useful here.

Making 2 more for the Eastern Front wouldn't be that expensive, or hard, but they have to be flown pretty much by engineers who can tweak PID settings, gyroscope, optical flow sensor in the field. Moreover, L41's detonator have to be unsafed in a very specific way, the process we fear can't be entrusted to a random soldier.

Third, only troops there been issued with L41. On the Eastern Front, they use Soviet 82mm ammo.

 

[The SC]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1589652194307244033

https://twitter.com/x/status/1589555782768787456

https://twitter.com/x/status/1589551954476556288

 

[The SC]

Ukraine Wins at Pavlovka | Russia Re-enters Bilohorivka​

 

[Shawnee]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1589705846493437952

Air defense in Kiev active against Iranian drones

 

[jhungary]

well convention I , edition 2016

COMMENTARY OF 2016
CHAPTER II : WOUNDED AND SICK
1313  This chapter is one of the most important in the Convention. The Convention may even be said to rest upon it, since it embodies the essential idea championed by the founders of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, an idea that has dominated all of the Geneva Conventions since 1864 – namely, that the person of the soldier who is wounded or sick, and who is therefore hors de combat, is from that moment inviolable. The wounded and sick, whether friend or foe, must be tended with the same care.

1315  Article 15 complements Article 12 by imposing an obligation ‘to search for and collect’ the wounded and sick in order to remove them from the immediate danger zone and to enable them to receive the necessary medical treatment and care. This is further complemented by Article 18, which contains the kernel of Henry Dunant’s idea for civilians to take action to assist and care for wounded and sick members of the armed forces, whether in response to an appeal by the military commander or spontaneously. A Party to the conflict must consider these options when taking ‘all possible measures’ to search for and collect the wounded and sick and in ensuring that they receive the medical care their condition requires.
ARTICLE 12

Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article [ Link ] , who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.
They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.
Only urgent medical reasons will authorize priority in the order of treatment to be administered.
Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex.
The Party to the conflict which is compelled to abandon wounded or sick to the enemy shall, as far as military considerations permit, leave with them a part of its medical personnel and material to assist in their care.

and 1952 comment on article 12
It should be pointed out in this connection that the notion of "neutrality", a term which in the 1864 text expressed the immunity enjoyed by ambulances, medical personnel, and by implication the wounded themselves, had already been dropped by 1906, The notion in question no doubt conveyed clearly enough that a combatant ceased to be an enemy once he was wounded and therefore harmless, and also the conception of medical personnel as being outside the conflict; but it did not correspond to reality, as the term "neutrality" refers essentially to the abstention of persons who are taking no part in the conflict. In place of this unsuitable and inexact expression it was thought preferable to substitute the notion of respect and protection in all circumstances. The word "respect" (' respecter ') means, according to the Dictionary of the French Academy, "to spare, not to attack" [p.135] (' épargner, ne point attaquer ') (2), whereas "protect" (' protéger ') means "to come to someone's defence, to lend help and support" (' prendre la défense de
quelqu'un, prêter secours et appui '). The introduction of these words made it unlawful for an enemy to attack, kill, illtreat or in any way harm a fallen and unarmed soldier, while it at the same time imposed upon the enemy an obligation to come to his aid and give him such care as his condition required.

Read the highlighted in red part?

It should be pointed out in this connection that the notion of "neutrality", a term which in the 1864 text expressed the immunity enjoyed by ambulances, medical personnel, and by implication the wounded themselves, had already been dropped by 1906, The notion in question no doubt conveyed clearly enough that a combatant ceased to be an enemy once he was wounded and therefore harmless, and also the conception of medical personnel as being outside the conflict; but it did not correspond to reality, as the term "neutrality" refers essentially to the abstention of persons who are taking no part in the conflict. In place of this unsuitable and inexact expression it was thought preferable to substitute the notion of respect and protection in all circumstances. The word "respect" (' respecter ') means, according to the Dictionary of the French Academy, "to spare, not to attack" [p.135] (' épargner, ne point attaquer ') (2), whereas "protect" (' protéger ') means "to come to someone's defence, to lend help and support" (' prendre la défense de
quelqu'un, prêter secours et appui '). The introduction of these words made it unlawful for an enemy to attack, kill, illtreat or in any way harm a fallen and unarmed soldier, while it at the same time imposed upon the enemy an obligation to come to his aid and give him such care as his condition required.

The following come from my wife, a Military Lawyer and an International Lawyer

The red part specifically mentioned that wounded is not in a condition of protection for the enemy. On the other hand, fallen mean incapacitated and unarmed can mean quite a lot of things, In most case, it directed at a person who have been verified to be unarmed and cannot be near any arms (ie after they are demilitarized). You don't have to have firearm on you to be considered "Armed" as long as it is readily available.

For example, a soldier went to sleep at a barrack does not consider to be unarmed. Even if he/she does not have any firearm on him/her when they sleep, hence a barrack full of sleeping soldier can be considered legitimate target.

 

[Abdul Rehman Majeed]

Worst performance by NATO.

It has been 8 months yet they have not been able to balkanize Russia.

 

[MeFishToo]

Worst performance by NATO.

It has been 8 months yet they have not been able to balkanize Russia.

Projection?

 

[Constantin84]

Worst performance by NATO.

It has been 8 months yet they have not been able to balkanize Russia.

NATO just sends left overs and third rate equipment while enjoying the vodka addicts dying and making a fool of themselves. We're also having a blast seeing idiotic cheerleaders as yourself coping...

 

[Beny Karachun]

Worst performance by NATO.

It has been 8 months yet they have not been able to balkanize Russia.

So long as the entire Russian army isn't blown up, NATO isn't involved yet

 

[Hack-Hook]

Read the highlighted in red part?




The following come from my wife, a Military Lawyer and an International Lawyer

The red part specifically mentioned that wounded is not in a condition of protection for the enemy. On the other hand, fallen mean incapacitated and unarmed can mean quite a lot of things, In most case, it directed at a person who have been verified to be unarmed and cannot be near any arms (ie after they are demilitarized). You don't have to have firearm on you to be considered "Armed" as long as it is readily available.

For example, a soldier went to sleep at a barrack does not consider to be unarmed. Even if he/she does not have any firearm on him/her when they sleep, hence a barrack full of sleeping soldier can be considered legitimate target.

Read it completely it says because of those many things the blue part specially

Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article [ Link ] , who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.
They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.
Only urgent medical reasons will authorize priority in the order of treatment to be administered.
Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex.
The Party to the conflict which is compelled to abandon wounded or sick to the enemy shall, as far as military considerations permit, leave with them a part of its medical personnel and material to assist in their care.

 

[1ndy]

from where you get it first the war was 52 years ago and other government another world , there was a revolution after that if you are not aware
second this is from Wikipedia from where you get that

Bangladesh Liberation War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 894408
only one time Iran name has ever came in that war and that is USA shipped its weapon to Jordan then routed them through Iran to Pakistan even in this there is no name of Iran as participant
View attachment 894410
and even in this
View attachment 894411
so I ask again from where you get that fake data

There you go my friend.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[jhungary]

Read it completely it says because of those many things the blue part specially

Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article [ Link ] , who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.
They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.
Only urgent medical reasons will authorize priority in the order of treatment to be administered.
Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex.
The Party to the conflict which is compelled to abandon wounded or sick to the enemy shall, as far as military considerations permit, leave with them a part of its medical personnel and material to assist in their care.

That part is for your own side, noted "Party to the Conflict" and subsequent referral to "The Party to the conflict which is compelled to abandon wounded or sick to the enemy shall..." which suggest the article did not talk about the enemy.

Again, as my wife explained before, once he/she were handed over as a POW, then they were covered by 3rd Geneva Convention, before then, they are covered by the first, and the first only cover action to your own side.

Again, please don't venture into unknown, I don't know how much you know about law, if I have to guess, my wife probably know a lot more than you do, and I will defer to her expertise as a lawyer than you, which you once again come to fishman net argument, you just spread the net and see if you have any talking point, you first talked about 2nd Geneva Convention, which does not cover land combat, then you talk about 1st Geneva convention about the term Fallen and Unarmed, then my wife said you can be armed without armament at your hand, and now you are talking about first Geneva convention, which as my wife point out that the wording points to it applies to your own side.

If you keep doing that, I may need to charge you for my wife's time.

 

[Hassan Al-Somal]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1589664212137435136

https://twitter.com/x/status/1589664216835067906