NewStats: 3,264,581 , 8,184,168 topics. Date: Wednesday, 11 June 2025 at 03:58 PM 395xn

⚡President Trump says he would rather have Elon Musk criticize him than the bill. He says he’s always liked Musk but was surprised by what he said. Trump adds: “Elon is upset because we took the EV mandate…”

Blakjewelry:

This is why they say common sense is not common.
Ukraine can sabotage Russia military asset without raising dust but these are asset required by international law to be visible, infact they are constantly being monitored. These are asset that their suspicious moment can cause international tension.

Infact some of Ukraine and even Israel's recent actions will give rise to a new phase of terrorism.

Permit me to say that your line about them being visible is not correct. Many of you guys seem to forget that many of these provisions actually apply only at a time of peace. Immediately war has been declared, those provisions are taken with a pinch of salt and are not applicable.
It's just like you charging someone for murder during a time of war. It is absolute lack of understanding of law and how it operates.
Russia is currently at war with Ukraine according to any legal definition, it's bombers are not required to be visible. All that gibberish of calling a full scale war an SMO is an argument that only finds footing among Nairaland dingbats

"May I remind you that we are having a June 6th, this is D-Day anniversary.
When the Americans once ended the war in Europe,"
"That was not a pleasant day for you," - President Trump.

"No that was not a pleasant ... Well, in the long run this was the liberation of my country from the Nazi dictatorship. We know what we owe you," - German Chancellor Merz.

Gbadebo19:

Permit me to say that your line about them being visible is not correct. Many of you guys seem to forget that many of these provisions actually apply only at a time of peace. Immediately war has been declared, those provisions are taken with a pinch of salt and are not applicable.
It's just like you charging someone for murder during a time of war. It is absolute lack of understanding of law and how it operates.
Russia is currently at war with Ukraine according to any legal definition, it's bombers are not required to be visible. All that gibberish of calling a full scale war an SMO is an argument that only finds footing among Nairaland dingbats

Lol so you are simply saying Ukraine can simply sneak into Russia, nope no need to sneak since there are Ukrainians living with in Russia and attach some explosives and attack a nuclear site and say it is normal.

If it is normal why didn't they attack asset that are crucial to the war. you said rules are off during war, why is Zelensky still moving freely when a cruise or hypersonic missile can take him out, why are leaders held able for war crimes if rules are off.

Why has Putin not use nuclear weapons on Ukraine if all rules are off during war time. Experts, politicians all know the implication of Zelensky's action, why do you think even Zelensky's buddies in Europe are all quiet after his actions.

In war you plan give your enemy blow that shake them not just to piss them off like japan did in pearl harbor, pearl harbor was even strategic though it was a wrong move not Ukraine. If I am Putin I will definitely do something that will put the fear of god in him.

Blakjewelry:

Lol so you are simply saying Ukraine can simply sneak into Russia, nope no need to sneak since there are Ukrainians living with in Russia and attach some explosives and attack a nuclear site and say it is normal.

If it is normal why didn't they attack asset that are crucial to the war. you said rules are off during war, why is Zelensky still moving freely when a cruise or hypersonic missile can take him out, why are leaders held able for war crimes if rules are off.

Why has Putin not use nuclear weapons on Ukraine if all rules are off during war time. Experts, politicians all know the implication of Zelensky's action, why do you think even Zelensky's buddies in Europe are all quiet after his actions.

In war you plan give your enemy blow that shake them not just to piss them off like japan did in pearl harbor, pearl harbor was even strategic though it was a wrong move not Ukraine. If I am Putin I will definitely do something that will put the fear of god in him.

Lol, you are simply confusing yourself.
1. Why didn't they attack assets that are crucial to the war? Are those bombers not crucial? In war, you only attack what are capable of attacking and which you are sure may or will not elicit greater destruction for you.
2. Why is Zelensky moving around? You are just clearly misinformed. I will tell you for free and as a matter of pure fact that no one is a target of assassination from Russia more than Zelensky. In the early days of the war, Chechen fighters were dispersed all into the surrounding enclaves to either kill or capture Zelensky. That they are failing does not mean they don't want to do it.
3. Why are leaders held able for war crimes during war? Every crime has it's own definition and ingredients. The absence of those ingredients makes the commission of the crime a nullity. I used murder as an example because according to its definition, it is a crime that can only be committed at a time of peace. That's why if a Russian soldier kills a Ukrainian civilian, he cannot be charged for murder particularly but rather for a different crime that can exist during war time. That's why there is always distinctions between things like stealing, corruption and misappropriation of funds even though they look very similar.
4. Why has Putin not used nuclear weapons? That Putin has not used nuclear weapons in Ukraine is not because of the law but as a matter of fear for the extinction of Russia itself. He is simply afraid of the repercussions which may both be legal and military which he clearly knows he has no chance of winning either.

Gbadebo19:

Lol, you are simply confusing yourself.
1. Why didn't they attack assets that are crucial to the war? Are those bombers not crucial? In war, you only attack what are capable of attacking and which you are sure may or will not elicit greater destruction for you.
2. Why is Zelensky moving around? You are just clearly misinformed. I will tell you for free and as a matter of pure fact that no one is a target of assassination from Russia more than Zelensky. In the early days of the war, Chechen fighters were dispersed all into the surrounding enclaves to either kill or capture Zelensky. That they are failing does not mean they don't want to do it.
3. Why are leaders held able for war crimes during war? Every crime has it's own definition and ingredients. The absence of those ingredients makes the commission of the crime a nullity. I used murder as an example because according to its definition, it is a crime that can only be committed at a time of peace. That's why if a Russian soldier kills a Ukrainian civilian, he cannot be charged for murder particularly but rather for a different crime that can exist during war time. That's why there is always distinctions between things like stealing, corruption and misappropriation of funds even though they look very similar.
4. Why has Putin not used nuclear weapons? That Putin has not used nuclear weapons in Ukraine is not because of the law but as a matter of fear for the extinction of Russia itself. He is simply afraid of the repercussions which may both be legal and military which he clearly knows he has no chance of winning either.

Let me add to this.
Even if Zelensky is in Russian soil and they don't kill him, it is a matter of calculated risk not a fear of any law that will question them if they do it. And moreover, they can only kill him while he is in Ukraine, if they do it if he is in probably USA, it's an escalation that is inviting the third country to war. Read about the first world war, it was that kind of thing that started it.
And lastly, I didn't say rules are off during war time, I said they are taken with a pinch or salt. It's an error on my part to extend it to "not being applicable." There is a big difference between laws that are internationally applicable and laws that are applicable only in the country it was enacted. All laws have territorial limitations and it also includes international laws as they can only be observed if the country is a signatory to its enactment.
The UN does not have a police force to enforce international law, that's why it requires a coalition of willing states to be effective.
Besides, Ukraine has not broken any law by destroying those bombers.

I don't think any smart person will be surprised between Elon and Trump crashout we all know it will come fast...The richest man and the most powerful man.
Now you will understand how good Putin has played this politics in Russia and abroad Nobody Above him not Elon and not Trump

With the way Elon Musk left DOGE, you would easily see that there was more to it than meets the eye. But when you see dingbats on Nairaland whose television is bigger than their bookshelves and can't read between the lines, they will be telling you how the post was not supposed to last beyond 120 days.

Gbadebo19:

Lol, you are simply confusing yourself.
1. Why didn't they attack assets that are crucial to the war? Are those bombers not crucial? In war, you only attack what are capable of attacking and which you are sure may or will not elicit greater destruction for you.
2. Why is Zelensky moving around? You are just clearly misinformed. I will tell you for free and as a matter of pure fact that no one is a target of assassination from Russia more than Zelensky. In the early days of the war, Chechen fighters were dispersed all into the surrounding enclaves to either kill or capture Zelensky. That they are failing does not mean they don't want to do it.
3. Why are leaders held able for war crimes during war? Every crime has it's own definition and ingredients. The absence of those ingredients makes the commission of the crime a nullity. I used murder as an example because according to its definition, it is a crime that can only be committed at a time of peace. That's why if a Russian soldier kills a Ukrainian civilian, he cannot be charged for murder particularly but rather for a different crime that can exist during war time. That's why there is always distinctions between things like stealing, corruption and misappropriation of funds even though they look very similar.
4. Why has Putin not used nuclear weapons? That Putin has not used nuclear weapons in Ukraine is not because of the law but as a matter of fear for the extinction of Russia itself. He is simply afraid of the repercussions which may both be legal and military which he clearly knows he has no chance of winning either.

I see you are commenting issues way beyond you here.
First off you said a soldier cannot be charge for murder during war, you are wrong. If a soldier kills another soldier or group of soldiers after they have surrender is a crime and if there are enough ing evidence, you can be charge for war crime when the war is over. Same goes for soldiers who murder civilians if there is enough evidence, they can be persecuted after the war.

Secondly you talked about the safety Zelensky, any kill order that is not from Kremlin is not a kill order. Russia has the tech to monitor his movement real-time. If Israel which depend on us space tech can do that why do you Russia which is good with rocket tech and his been in the spying game with the us can't do that. If they want to take him out, it is quite easy.

And you talked about about Russia not using Nuke out of fear, fear of who if I might ask. You can only fear a nuclear arm state of retaliation not a non nuclear state. If Russia were to Nuke Ukraine today, it only going to cause a frenzy around the world and nothing more. The highest thing is, it is going to push non nuclear arm station to reconsider their stance. In fact that singular is going to frighten Europe to their very bone.
No nuclear arm state go to war with Russia over Ukraine, no sane person will want to risk the lives of their people over Ukraine.

Also for those asking what difference does Russia declaring a full scale war on Ukraine will mean, currently you still have vessels, ships and planes still entering and exiting Ukraine at will, that will cease to exist. Getting and supply is going to be a risky task, you have to fly at night under the cover of dark and most times a makeshift runways. War is not for kids who is trying to prove a point.

The only reason people are associating Ukraine to ww3 is because Zelensky is trying drag the west into a war with Russia.

Blakjewelry:

I see you are commenting issues way beyond you here.
First off you said a soldier cannot be charge for murder during war, you are wrong. If a soldier kills another soldier or group of soldiers after they have surrender is a crime and if there are enough ing evidence, you can be charge for war crime when the war is over. Same goes for soldiers who murder civilians if there is enough evidence, they can be persecuted after the war.

Secondly you talked about the safety Zelensky, any kill order that is not from Kremlin is not a kill order. Russia has the tech to monitor his movement real-time. If Israel which depend on us space tech can do that why do you Russia which is good with rocket tech and his been in the spying game with the us can't do that. If they want to take him out, it is quite easy.

And you talked about about Russia not using Nuke out of fear, fear of who if I might ask. You can only fear a nuclear arm state of retaliation not a non nuclear state. If Russia were to Nuke Ukraine today, it only going to cause a frenzy around the world and nothing more. The highest thing is, it is going to push non nuclear arm station to reconsider their stance. In fact that singular is going to frighten Europe to their very bone.
No nuclear arm state go to war with Russia over Ukraine, no sane person will want to risk the lives of their people over Ukraine.

Also for those asking what difference does Russia declaring a full scale war on Ukraine will mean, currently you still have vessels, ships and planes still entering and exiting Ukraine at will, that will cease to exist. Getting and supply is going to be a risky task, you have to fly at night under the cover of dark and most times a makeshift runways. War is not for kids who is trying to prove a point.

The only reason people are associating Ukraine to ww3 is because Zelensky is trying drag the west into a war with Russia.

Permit to say you can never understand what am talking about. One of the first things i learnt as a law student is never to argue law with a person who didn't study it. You just can never understand!!!!
You are interpreting murder like a layman. To you, any killing is murder or manslaughter.
I didn't say a soldier cannot be charged. I said he cannot be charged specifically for the offence of murder. He can of course be charged for something else such as wilful killing or violation of Internal humanitarian law. I gave you an example of stealing, corruption, embezzlement and misappropriation of funds. It's the same way murder is different from war crimes even though they both have elements of life taking. If someone breaks into your house during the day and steals, you can only charge them for stealing and house breaking but never burglary. They are all different things. Am afraid you can't understand these things. I won't be wasting time attending to any other point here.

For the purpose of understanding, tell the police who have arrested someone who killed another in say, southwest Nigeria and that they should write "culpable homicide not punishable with death" in the charge sheet, the court will throw it away as that offence is unknown to law. Same way charging a soldier for murder will be unknown to law under international law. It must read "war crime of........."

Gbadebo19:

Permit to say you can never understand what am talking about. One of the first things i learnt as a law student is never to argue law with a person who didn't study it. You just can never understand!!!!
You are interpreting murder like a layman. To you, any killing is murder or manslaughter.
I didn't say a soldier cannot be charged. I said he cannot be charged specifically for the offence of murder. He can of course be charged for something else such as wilful killing or violation of Internal humanitarian law. I gave you an example of stealing, corruption, embezzlement and misappropriation of funds. It's the same way murder is different from war crimes even though they both have elements of life taking. If someone breaks into your house during the day and steals, you can only charge them for stealing and house breaking but never burglary. They are all different things. Am afraid you can't understand these things. I won't be wasting time attending to any other point here.

For the purpose of understanding, tell the police who have arrested someone who killed another in say, southwest Nigeria and that they should write "culpable homicide not punishable with death" in the charge sheet, the court will throw it away as that offence is unknown to law. Same way charging a soldier for murder will be unknown to law under international law. It must read "war crime of........."

And by the way, killing civilians in a state of war is not even a war crime. It is categorized as crime against humanity under the Rome statute.
You can find more on what constitutes war crime below, you will see that murder is specifically omitted. I understand you are interpreting murder as just any killing, but it doesn't apply that way under law.

Gbadebo19:

Permit to say you can never understand what am talking about. One of the first things i learnt as a law student is never to argue law with a person who didn't study it. You just can never understand!!!!
You are interpreting murder like a layman. To you, any killing is murder or manslaughter.
I didn't say a soldier cannot be charged. I said he cannot be charged specifically for the offence of murder. He can of course be charged for something else such as wilful killing or violation of Internal humanitarian law. I gave you an example of stealing, corruption, embezzlement and misappropriation of funds. It's the same way murder is different from war crimes even though they both have elements of life taking. If someone breaks into your house during the day and steals, you can only charge them for stealing and house breaking but never burglary. They are all different things. Am afraid you can't understand these things. I won't be wasting time attending to any other point here.

For the purpose of understanding, tell the police who have arrested someone who killed another in say, southwest Nigeria and that they should write "culpable homicide not punishable with death" in the charge sheet, the court will throw it away as that offence is unknown to law. Same way charging a soldier for murder will be unknown to law under international law. It must read "war crime of........."

Lol stop trying to play smart and stop beating around the bush words. Those word play are technicalities coin to know if an action is intentional or an accident.
Laws are laws and they prepared and modified for every possible scenario whether it is a time of peace or wars.

🤯 🇺🇸

😲 🤯 🇺🇸

Blakjewelry:

Lol stop trying to play smart and stop beating around the bush words. Those word play are technicalities coin to know if an action is intentional or an accident.
Laws are laws and they prepared and modified for every possible scenario whether it is a time of peace or wars.

One funny thing about guys like you is the arrogance and temerity with which you dabble into affairs beyond your understanding. Law has its ways of knowing whether an action is intentional or an accident. There is a reason why the constituents of a crime are listed as Actus Reus and Mens Rea.
And talking about every possible scenario. Rules of interpretation exists separately for that purpose. Abeg, don't let this ignorance of yours spread beyond Nairaland.

⚡Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski to Musk:

See, big man, politics is harder than you thought.

Gbadebo19:

One funny thing about guys like you is the arrogance and temerity with which you dabble into affairs beyond your understanding. Law has its ways of knowing whether an action is intentional or an accident. There is a reason why the constituents of a crime are listed as Actus Reus and Mens Rea.
And talking about every possible scenario. Rules of interpretation exists separately for that purpose. Abeg, don't let this ignorance of yours spread beyond Nairaland.

Lol you know who sound like? Those guys from old who finish from standard 6 and love using big grammar to show that are schooled or a new university student who first encounter philosophy and logic and try to impress you in an argument or maybe those empty headed prof who try to impress you oversize grammar.

Funny thing is the thought did occur to some few days, I wondered why lawyers still uses words from language like latin when clearly there is an English word for it. Maybe it just to make them feel big, infact no other profession does that lol.

Back to our discussion, our earlier discuss was point blank. You are trying to draw me into a game of back and forth and we might never find an end if I decide to play your game.

Allthelight:


But Russia bombed Ukraine massively last weeks, before Ukraine did same... So what is his point ?

Did you see Russia deliberately attacking Ukrainia's nuclear power plant?

Allthelight:
So if Russia faces a powerful opponent like us that is how they will lose their nuclear bombers..

It is best they stop the fighting

The purpose of the Nuke is to stop themselves from attacking each other. Besides such actions will interpreted as you are preparing to strike. Also these guys are not the real threat, nuclear sub are.

⚡Vladimir Putin has offered to negotiate a peace deal between President Trump and Elon Musk

WritterNg:
⚡Vladimir Putin has offered to negotiate a peace deal between President Trump and Elon Musk

Putin the great

Gbadebo19:

And by the way, killing civilians in a state of war is not even a war crime. It is categorized as crime against humanity under the Rome statute.
You can find more on what constitutes war crime below, you will see that murder is specifically omitted. I understand you are interpreting murder as just any killing, but it doesn't apply that way under law.

Since you like playing with words, from the article you screen grab, please simply Google search willful killing and murder and come back to explain.

Because they didn't specifically mentioned murder. You forget when the charge is read against you, you hear something like "murder of innocent women and children"

See keep on taking shot but you end up blacking out.

Blakjewelry:

I wondered why lawyers still uses words from language like latin when clearly there is an English word for it. Maybe it just to make them feel big, infact no other profession does that lol.

Lol, you are out of your depths. A person who studied ordinary English will not even say this.
English is the language of courts, Latin is the language of law.
Do you know how meaning is sometimes lost when you translate a language from one to another? It is pure f**lishness to think lawyers use Latin as a matter of show off. The meaning that is intended to be conveyed will be lost when said in English. It's just like you interpreting proverbs from one language to another, you can't the meaning across as it should be ed across.
You are a pro Russian that has been masquerading as a neutral all this while, your blind love for Russia is merely making you see things the way they are not.

Blakjewelry:

Since you like playing with words, from the article you screen grab, please simply Google search willful killing and murder and come back to explain.

Because they didn't specifically mentioned murder. You forget when the charge is read against you, you hear something like "murder of innocent women and children"

See keep on taking shot but you end up blacking out.

Since you so much love Google, I will be happy to help you out. See the part that talks about the difference. It says: "the specific element that needs to be proven." You people will just come online and be arguing what you know nothing about. If you still have any argument after this one, I will just conclude that you are under the effects of Canadian loud.

Gbadebo19:

Since you so much love Google, I will be happy to help you out. See the part that talks about the difference. It says: "the specific element that needs to be proven." You people will just come online and be arguing what you know nothing about. If you still have any argument after this one, I will just conclude that you are under the effects of Canadian loud.

Continuing on this. I will take the time to educate the wooden box you call a head today.
1. A mother who intentionally kills her own severely handicapped child for the purpose of saving the child from the troubles of this world has not committed murder but has committed wilful killing. Such a person cannot be punished with the capital punishment of death.

2. A woman who unintentionally kills her own child while suffering from the after effects of childbirth has not committed murder or wilful killing, such a person committed only manslaughter or culpable homicide not punishable with death.

I can go on and on educating you dingbats on the differences between many of these things. But your arrogance will not let you learn.

Blakjewelry:

Did you see Russia deliberately attacking Ukrainia's nuclear power plant?

During the start of the war Russia attack a nuclear plant in Ukraine the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, how did Russia a foreign power become the occupiers of the plant if they didn't attack it, go and read about the Zaporizhzhia plant seige by Russian forces. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had to raise alarms about the hostile takeover.


Since you like talking about international laws, please which law did the Ukrainians break by striking Russia's strategic bombers?? I will like to know mate.

Those bombers have dual purposes, they can carry conventional payloads, those bombers are Russia's go to platform for cruise missiles attacks in Ukraine, these are the bombers which have rain hell in Ukraine, The Ukrainian strikes are well under the scope as regards the laws of engagement.

If your argument is that they shouldn't be targeted because they are part of Russia strategic bombers used for enforcement of nuclear deterrence then that is laughable.

Blakjewelry:



In war you plan give your enemy blow that shake them not just to piss them off like japan did in pearl harbor, pearl harbor was even strategic though it was a wrong move not Ukraine. If I am Putin I will definitely do something that will put the fear of god in him.

Seriously dude, The pearl harbour attack was just to "shake" the US?? 😅🤣😂😂, both nations were still in a state of peaceful relations when the attack happened.

Pearl harbor was the US only means of power projection in Asia, the backbone of US naval power in the region, It was very Strategic mate, the Japanese knew if they could cripple pearl harbor and take out the USN carriers, the US won't ne able to intervene in Asia, thus making her handicapped in the region, same also applies to the Russian military bases housing its heavy bombers, take out those planes and it cripples Russia ability to conduct long range cruise missiles attacks into Ukraine.

An "unprovoked attack" on US military bases housing US forces and there civilians families, a base which was the home port of US valuable aircrafts carriers, Close to two thousand five hundred Americans died in the attack which according to you was meant to "shake" them and not piss them off.

Well, the Americans were well "shaken" that the very next morning Potus Roosevelt asked congress to declare war on Japan which they did within an hour and bringing the United States into WW2.

WritterNg:
⚡Vladimir Putin has offered to negotiate a peace deal between President Trump and Elon Musk

This one is just looking for a way to crookedly make America see him as good. 🤣🤣

Gbadebo19:

This one is just looking for a way to crookedly make America see him as good. 🤣🤣

It never happened.