₦airaland Forum

Dalil8:
The blood of these innocent people are on the hands of Zelensky

Glory to the fatherland Russia!

Fatherland Russia ke. You are funny

JooEeL:
It is obvious there are pro-NATO mercenaries pushing propaganda all across countries of the world.

It seems u are more paranoid of NATO and free press than Putin.
How can a normal person be afraid of free flow of information-that one na mental problem.

Gospel2Day:
Aside from their nuclear arsenal, Russian military can't stand USA military in conventional warfare. Their invasion of Ukraine has exposed Russia's military incompetence and tactical inadequacy.

You have gone too far to mention USA.
The Russian army can't stand either the Isreali or British army in a conventional war. This Ukraine war has clearly exposed them. They are always hiding under their nuclear weapons

JooEeL:
Some of you don't just have sense.

The bombing of the train at Kaduna, did you see your Western propaganda machines dish the news out to the world? Your BBC Nigeria called the Fulani terrorists mere 'gang'.

Anyway, many of you are at the low point in the evolution cycle so all these ignorance is expected... until your likes are wiped off by the evil you support.

It's just natural selection.

Another zombified Putin ass licker spotted

Russia pathetic & authoritarian leader wants to zombify us with Russian cheap propaganda. They are Paranoid by the truth. Putin knows that if its citizens know the truth they will revolt.

Rugaria:
It's you and the Western propaganda machinery that are impugning different objectives on the Russians. The Russians never told you that they are going there to totally occupy a country of 40 million. It's the Western Media that dropped that alarming propaganda to set the bar too high so as to make it look like anything short of total occupation of Ukraine is a monumental failure for Russia. Very predictable..

What The Kremlin said was that Russia was conducting a limited military activity in Ukraine in order to remove avowed Nazis and NATO apologists disrupting the chance of a healthy diplomatic relationship between the two neighbors. That schedule is going as planned and the Nazis are being gruesomely decimated.. Beautiful Ukraine will be better for it.. NATO brings nothing but wars and blood..

Kindly check ur facts before typing.
You said Russia is conducting limited operation, but its soldiers are dying in their thousands.
Russia wants to occupy Mariupol in order to link up Crimen with Donbass region, in fact an administration has been set-up for it, unfortunately they haven't been able to occupy it after 5 weeks.

Elvictor:
Carried it, and later on twitter, it was said to be Ukraine, I don't interact with people of low intellect, run along.

Bro, don't be confused by our combo of English & pidgin. If ' carried it' disoriented u, I can change it for u to ' reported it '

shogsman:
they've flattened Ukraine, destroyed thousands of it's millitary infrastructure, disabled it's air and sea defense, captured it's nuclear plants and ports, basically bombed kharkiv,irpin,lyiv,Kyiv, mauripol to dust and it now looks like Ukraine.and they've not even used 2% of Thier resources,they have enough nukes to turn ukraine to dust 500times over and over again with Thier president basically begging for help every minute
Dull@rds like you think we're talking about Hollywood here.
Ukraine is a country that has an army twenty times stronger than Nigeria's and you idiot thinks they would surrender without a fight. It took america 20years to fight slippers wearing talliban and they still lost
Tired of talking to imbec!les who don't know how anything works.
Why do your dumb@ss thinks USA and NATO is avoiding any direct confrontation with them.
Over 60% of the whole of the country has Been bombed and Russia is not even officially at war with them.
!diots like yourself keep edging them on why they get totally destroyed like internet likes makes a difference in war

I repeat, you need help.
U claimed Russia bombed this, bombed that city but couldn't capture any major city. Military strength is not about bombing. By your flawed logic it means that Islamic terrorists that bomb churches, mosques etc would be regarded as the most powerful in the world.
As for Afghanistan, it was captured by USA and a new govt put in place for 20yrs. The American withdrew after peace negotiations.
U need further political education to understand the world better.

Elvictor:


This fake news dey sweet NATO boys

Ignorance is not something to be proud of.
This news is 100% accurate. Even RT Putin propaganda channel meant for Zombies carried it.

People who do not have enough capacity to meet local demand want to supply to Europe. What a joke!

SarkinYarki:
Stay off CNN please

And listen to RT or Sputnik and be zombified by Putin abi?

BloomingDale:
Russia is one of the four craftsmen mentioned in the Bible used by God to achieve his aim. Nothing is going to happen to them. China is the other. I’m not sure who the rest are. Probably Iran and North Korea.

Pls remove religion from this matter. You guys just spill garbage in the name of religion

Babapyro:
I wonder who the mumu is here,you or a country that is arguably the most powerful millitary in the world

The most powerful military in the world ke - u need help.
By international ranking or by battle field success with little Ukraine, Russia doesn't come close.

Russia army - Paper tiger

chatinent:
But how can Ukraine be begging Putin and still be doing these?

These people are really brainwashed by the US...except of course, it's another propaganda.

It seems you are the one brainwashed by Russia propaganda
Nobody is begging anyone. They are beating the Russians Wella, however, what they are asking for is peace in their land.

Igbofam2:
https://nenow.in/world/ukrainian-forces-recapture-trostyanets-poltavka-malynivka-russian.html

Very brave Ukrainian soldiers. Russia's military is highly over-rated. If not that they have nuclear weapons, they can't be reckoned with.
The Russia military can't even match Isreal or Britain in a one on one battle.
Nuclear weapons is all the can boast of as if they are the only nuclear nation.

mrvitalis:
Truth is hypocrisy of America n west is so clear to any sensible person

Believe anything RT news at your own detrimental

JustforMen:
Coming from one of the uninformed adults on NL.
So how does NATO intend to prevent Russia from attacking it's smaller neighbours, Mr brainy?

You forget that the west particularly US, destabilized the former USSR and broke it up into the so called "smaller neighbours" as part of the cold war.

Which coalition stops the US when it attacks it's smaller neighbours like Panama, Cuba and Nicaragua?

I think you may be "too informed" by your ignorance and CNN.

Sorry for calling you uninformed. But NATO is a defensive umbrella due to its article 5 doctrine.
Most countries in E. Europe join NATO for protection not because they want to fight Russia. Hope u can assimilate this?

JustforMen:
Mrs Brave, who is a coward?

A single man standing up to and fighting a group or
the group that needs a coalition to face one man?

Use your brain... I know you have it... Set your emotions aside... Think, it is still free and possible.

So many uninformed adults on NL
The coalition is not to fight Russia but an attempt to prevent Russia from attacking its smaller neighbors.

MajorOvakporaye:
I have said it time and over again that it is very easy to identify amala and ewedu overnight war analysts on Nairaland

Russian citizens are going about their normal business in Russia but Ukrainians cannot do same in Ukraine. Many Ukrainians are now refugees in other countries, yet I've not seen any Russian citizen that's a refugee in any country

Bros, Russia is being choked by sanctions and the citizens will keep feeling the pain over many years. Look at N. Korea or Iran. Crippling sanctions could be as bad as war.

XXXXTENTACION:
CNN Elder...
do you know how many years U.S.A spent invading Afghanistan..

Massive ignorance on display. USA
overthrew the Taliban in weeks but occupied Afghanistan for over 20 years.
By the way Russia's grandfathers the USSR invaded Afghanistan too for more than 9 yrs and left in disgrace after massive human & material losses. The losses were so huge that it was part of the reasons the USSR collapsed.
Russia nuclear saber rattling clearly shows to any sane mind that they are weak and scared of the military might of the west.
For your information, Russia is a regional power just as Nigeria is a regional power in West Africa. However, they have massive amounts of nuclear weapons to deter and threaten greater powers from taking on them.

Kastonkastroll:
And NATO couldn't defeat common talibans for 20yrs. They had to run at last. The joke is on you guys

The level of ignorance displayed by some of you is alarming.
1. The Taliban was defeated & removed from power.
2. They took refuge in Pakistan and engaged in suicide bombings killing their fellow Afghans which necessitated a political solution to stop the suicide/ terrorist attacks on innocent citizens
3. However, the Afghan civilian govt was fantastically corrupt that when the army and civil servant learnt Abt the American withdrawal plans, they felt it will be better the Taliban are given a chance hoping they won't be as bad as their corrupt govt. Which explains why they refused to fight the Taliban as they came in from Pakistan to take over the control of government.
4. Back to Russia, Russia is weak militarily. At best they are a regional power, which can intimidate it's smaller neighbors just like Nigeria can intimidate its neighbors in W/A. One on one with the Nigerian army, they won't win. But they have a massive stock pile of nuclear weapons developed during the Soviet era. Fight them conventionally, they can be beaten.
U hear them make reference to their nuclear weapons to frighten the US & others from fighting them. It is the same tactics with the north Korea who developing nuke so that the US & others do not take on them.

My question is: Did this hot fucking take place before or after Janemema got married.
If before, not a big deal.
If after, it's a big deal. Marriage crisis loading

Israel-Gaza: What the law says about the fighting
By Guglielmo Verdirame

Department of War Studies, King’s College London

Published7 hours ago
A Palestinian woman carries her son after their apartment building was hit in an Israeli air strike in Gaza City (12 May 2021)
IMAGE COPYRIGHTREUTERS
image captionStates may defend themselves only with necessary and proportionate force
International law regulates the use of military force by states and the conduct of hostilities.

As in virtually every modern conflict, there is intense debate on the legality of the actions of the two main sides involved here - Israel and Hamas.

Self-defence
As in previous operations in Gaza, Israel is likely to argue that its actions are justified under the right of self-defence.

Enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, the right of self-defence is a fundamental principle of international law. While aspects of this principle are disputed, it is universally agreed that a state can defend itself against an armed attack.

There is some debate as to the intensity that an armed attack should reach before a state can lawfully resort to self-defence. Most international lawyers would agree that rockets launched against civilians that disrupt the social life of part of a country constitute an armed attack for the purposes of Article 51.

However, the facts underlying self-defence are often in dispute. Parties to a conflict seldom agree on who is the attacker and who is the defender - and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts are no exception. In this case, critics of the Israeli position also advance two legal arguments.

Rockets are launched by Palestinian militants in Gaza towards Israel (10 May 2021)
IMAGE COPYRIGHTREUTERS
image captionPalestinian militants in Gaza have launched barrages of rockets towards Israeli population centres
First, they argue that the right of self-defence is available only against another state, but not against a non-state entity like Gaza. State practice, especially since the attacks of 11 September 2001, militates against this interpretation of self-defence, but the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice has not settled this question.

Secondly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, among others, considers Gaza is still subject to Israeli occupation because of the degree to which Israel exerts control over and around that territory. Israel maintains that it has not occupied Gaza since its withdrawal in 2005 and that a territory cannot be occupied without "boots on the ground".

The right of self-defence is no blank cheque. International law allows states to defend themselves in the right circumstances, but only with force that is necessary and proportionate.

A common misperception is that proportionality in self-defence means an eye for an eye, a rocket for a rocket, or a casualty for a casualty. This is not so: there is no place in international law for using force in revenge.

In some cases, a necessary and proportionate response will entail the use of greater military force than was involved in the original attack; in other cases, it will be possible for a country to defend itself effectively with less force.

The law of armed conflict
The principle of self-defence belongs to the body of international law that regulates resort to force or "going to war" (often referred to by the Latin term jus ad bellum, that is, "law to war".

A separate category of international law regulates the conduct of hostilities once the conflict has started. It is known as the law of armed conflict (or the jus in bello that is "law in war". The law of armed conflict applies only to situations that can be classified as armed conflicts, with different sets of rules governing international or non-international armed conflicts.

Israeli soldiers work at a building damaged by a rocket launched from the Gaza Strip, in Ashdod, southern Israel (11 May 2021)
IMAGE COPYRIGHTREUTERS
image captionAttacks on civilians and civilian objects are always banned under international law
The law of armed conflict applies regardless of the reasons that prompted a party to resort to force.

Starting a war off on the "right" side of the law does not give a state more rights in the conduct of hostilities than its enemies. It is possible for a state that resorted to force lawfully to commit unlawful acts in the course of an armed conflict - and vice versa.

The law of armed conflict includes detailed rules on different aspects of the conduct of hostilities (protection of civilians, treatments of prisoners of war, occupied territory, etc). All of these rules rest on the balancing of four key principles: humanity and military necessity, and distinction and proportionality.

Humanity and military necessity
The principle of humanity requires belligerents to avoid unnecessary suffering and cruelty. The counterweight to it is military necessity.

The legal manual used by the British armed forces says that military necessity allows a state to use force, unless otherwise prohibited, which is "required in order to achieve the legitimate purpose of the conflict, namely the complete or partial submission of the enemy at the earliest possible moment and with the minimum expenditure of life and resources". The argument that the Israeli bombardments on Gaza are ineffective because they have always failed to stop rocket attacks may, in one sense, evidence the futility of the use of force in this context. But, from a military necessity angle, it may justify the use of greater force as is necessary to achieve the objective of averting the attacks.

Smoke and flames rise from Gaza during Israeli air strikes (12 May 2021)
IMAGE COPYRIGHTREUTERS
image captionIsrael has conducted air strikes in Gaza that have destroyed residential buildings
Of course, the fact that the law permits a certain action does not make it wise in a political, moral or strategic sense.

In any event, military necessity cannot justify actions that are prohibited under specific rules (e.g. those applying to the protection of civilians and the choice of permissible targets) or that, more generally, result "in the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge" (in the words of the Lieber Code, one of the first codifications of the rules of armed conflict enacted by President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War).

Distinction and proportionality
A cornerstone in the law of armed conflict is the principle of distinction: parties to a conflict must distinguish between combatants and civilians at all times.

Various specific rules flesh out the content of this principle. Attacks on civilians and civilian objects are always banned. Attacks may be conducted against combatants or non-combatants who directly participate in hostilities, and against military objectives.

An Israeli man takes a photo with his mobile phone of a residential building hit by a rocket launched from Gaza, in Ashkelon, Israel (14 May 2021)
IMAGE COPYRIGHTREUTERS
image captionDozens of civilians have been killed while hundreds more have been wounded in recent days
The principle of distinction also prohibits acts or threats of violence aimed at spreading terror among civilians, as well as attacks carried out with means which, by their nature, cannot target a specific military objective. The launching of missiles against southern Israel, for example, is said to breach distinction because of its inherently indiscriminate nature.

But when does an object become a legitimate military target?

International law defines military objectives as "objects which... make an effective contribution to military action... and whose total or partial destruction... offers a definite military advantage".

Israel Defense Forces (IDF) tanks or Hamas rocket launchers are in this category. Problems arise with so-called dual-use targets, such as the Serbian TV station bombed by Nato during the 1999 Kosovo War.

Israeli artillery shells targets in the Gaza Strip, at the Israel-Gaza Border (13 May 2021)
IMAGE COPYRIGHTEPA
image captionIt is not easy to establish the facts during or after an armed conflict
But the most difficult issues arise when a permissible military objective, such as a rocket launcher or an ammunition depot, lies in the proximity of civilians or civilian objects. Virtually every targeting decision in a densely populated area as Gaza will involve such situations.

This is where the principle of proportionality also comes into play. While proportionality is an important concept in other areas of law, including human rights law, it has a distinctive meaning in the law of armed conflict. Whenever there is a risk of loss of civilian life or damage to civilian property, belligerents are required to balance the anticipated military advantage with the risks posed to civilians and their property.

In some cases, this will mean - as the former president of the International Court of Justice, Judge Rosalyn Higgins, wrote in a judgment - that "even a legitimate target may not be attacked if the collateral civilian casualties would be disproportionate to the specific military gain from the attack".

An attacker is also under a duty to call off an attack immediately if, in the course of it, it realises that civilians would face excessive risk.

Any attacker targeting military objectives in densely populated areas will have to do everything feasible to verify the nature of the targets and avoid errors.

The practice of dropping leaflets or calling residents before a bombing is presented by Israel as evidence of its efforts to comply with these rules, although critics reply that these methods are not always effective at preventing loss of life and that, even when they are, they cannot avoid the destruction of civilian property as well as the infliction of suffering and distress on civilians.

A Palestinian man walks past a high-rise building destroyed in an Israeli air strike in Gaza City (12 May 2021)
IMAGE COPYRIGHTREUTERS
image captionThe Israeli military says it makes every effort to preserve civilian life
Conversely, a frequent accusation levelled against Hamas is that it deliberately endangers its own civilians by placing military objectives in their midst.

If true, this would doubtless be a serious breach of the laws of armed conflict, but it does not mitigate Israel's obligation to continue to take all necessary precautions to minimise loss of civilian life.

All modern armed forces, including the Israel Defense Forces, have specialists on the law of armed conflict who are involved in the approval of targets.

The legality of a particular targeting decision will often depend on the facts. Was there a genuine military objective? Was it possible in the circumstances to hit that target while avoiding any loss of civilian life? What did the attacker know or should have known?

Establishing these facts during an armed conflict, or in its aftermath, is no easy feat.

However, when the attacker deliberately targets civilians or civilian objects, there is no version of the facts capable of justifying his actions under the laws of armed conflict.

Human Rights
The International Court of Justice has repeatedly ruled that the application of human rights law does not cease in times of war, while also maintaining that the law of armed conflict is the special law that governs this area as it was developed specifically to address the unique challenges of war. What this means in practice is not always clear, particularly as regards targeting decisions.

When it comes to the clashes in Arab villages in Israel, there is, however, no concurrent application of the law of armed conflict: whether the response of Israel's law enforcement and security forces is consistent with international law in those cases will depend exclusively on the application of human rights law.

East Jerusalem is a more complex situation because, while Israel annexed it to its territory, it is still considered part of the occupied Palestinian territory by virtually everyone else, including the International Court of Justice which gave an Advisory Opinion in 2004 on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory .

Last, but certainly not least, it must be remembered that the law of armed conflict can only mitigate the horrors of war. A war fought with a scrupulous observance of all the rules in the book - if there ever was one - would still be a scourge.

Guglielmo Verdirame QC is a professor of International Law at the Department of War Studies and Dickson Poon School of Law, King's College London

So we are not talking of solving the problem of security challenge facing this country again. It now how to keep settling bandits/terrorist with hundreds of millions of naira over and over again.This is a new industry all thanks to gross incompetence/corruption of the ruling class.

A God-fearing man is a God-fearing man.
Not only pastors are God-fearing.
Any responsible, descent and family-centric man is God-fearing.

Public sector jobs is not the solution to unemployment problem. How many pple can the govt employ? Where's the money to pay for their inefficiency? Any politician advocating for it lacks ideas on how to stimulate the economy.

It's good the date is shifted