Journal of Other Forum Analysis (Volume II, Issue 2)

[Eric Cartman]

From my vantage point, which is of course subjective, none of what [USER=54911]Vaenyr[/USER] posted could be viewed as "justifying war crimes."

And to ensure that this is a general comment rather than a specific one, I'm noting that I used to find it disconcerting that mods -- none of whom, as far as I know, are trained in international humanitarian law -- routinely deploy legalistic language in moderation notices. It's objectively true that things that occur in armed conflict may rise to the colloquial level of tragedy, but aren't "war crimes" in the legal sense. I got over this, after a ban on my own end, because I realized they were just referring to "war crimes" in the colloquial sense.

I believe there's a fundamental difference between stating "this argument exists, and these actors use it," versus "I openly advocate for this argument."

And it sometimes seems like the former is considered to be the same as the latter.

By the way, I think anyone (Hasan included) who thinks that Russia's invasion of Crimea and then Greater Ukraine is remotely justified is a flat-out idiot, but I don't see a problem with noting that it's one of the lawfare-based tactics that Moscow uses to drum up support. Any understanding of Moscow's recent aggression cannot be understood without appreciating its territorial ambitions, the fall of the Soviet Union, its designs on the Caucus region, and Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics.

I know hasanbara when I see it