NonCredibleDefense
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
view the rest of the comments
Sure. But it's Azerbaijan according to international law. So it's simply false to say "Azerbaijan attacked Armenia", because Armenia refers to certain internationally agreed upon territory, which doesn't cover the area Azerbaijanis attacked, regardless of your opinions on whether it was justified or not.
on the ground reality is that azeri army attacked what is in practical terms armenian settled breakaway territory of Nagorno Karabakh. ignoring for five minutes whether they were there legally or not, azeri army attacked armenians. if you want to untangle technicalities of it all, like whose territory is that, you'd have as much luck as anyone trying to build a lasting peace in middle east
it's a shitshow and it will remain so, especially considering that azerbaijan has oil and gas exports now, so usual arbiters have to be nice to these authoritarian fuckers for five minutes especially after ditching russian gas
also it only makes sense for armenia to leave csto, especially after russia did absolutely fucking nothing to protect them four years ago. the only weird thing about it is what took them so long
As an "azeri", I agree, the situation is a shitshow. Both nations lived together in many of these territories and you can't just draw a line to separate them. I don't know what a practical solution to this issue would be. Currently, the nations dislike each other, to put it mildly. But I have to say that since Azerbaijan recaptured their internationally recognized territories, there at least has been a ray of hope, because the leaders actually starting talking to try to solve things. There was 0 progress for almost 30 years and suddenly, there is some (no way you would see Pshinyan and Aliyev smiling on the same photo before then). As soon as the primary instigator (Russia) got busy enough, there's progress started.
And while Azerbaijan is obviously not completely in the right here, considering the treatment of the prisoners and such, the western support for Armenia is mostly due to political reasons and not because Azerbaijan's actions to reclaim their internationally recognized territories are inherently wrong. France and USA both have a lot of Armenian voters which influence their decisions, so the situation is rather skewed in the media. They bark to get the votes, but do nothing, because they want the oil/gas, and cause the territories are legally Azerbaijan.
Both parties are historically at fault and it was beneficial to keep them fighting.
He's only arguing because he's biased, and I suspect ethnically azeri. Even by his own criteria he is incorrect, as they have occupied internationally recognized areas of Armenia.
I already made them aware of "Azerbaijani soldiers crossed several kilometers into Armenia in the provinces of Syunik and Gegharkunik. Despite international calls for withdrawal from the European Parliament, the United States, and France, Azerbaijan has maintained its presence on Armenian soil, occupying at least 215 square kilometres (83 sq mi) of internationally recognized Armenian territory."
Which they ignored, they are still only making a mix of semantic or pedantic arguments.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Not only do I disagree with the pedantic nature of your rebuttal, but you are incorrect based on your own criteria.
So yeah, wrong on all accounts.
International law does not dictate reality, nor does it prevent or resolve conflicts over territorial disputes. If it did, Armenia would still possess the land they have historically occupied since basically recorded history. You are throwing a dart and then drawing a bullseye around it.
Secondly, nations do not attack land masses, they attack people. Azerbaijan attacked Armenian citizens, and a nation is composed of its people.
If the US carrier fleet was attacked while at port in a different country, would people tolerate the pedantic excuse of, "they didn't attack America because they don't have sovereign reign in the area they were attacked" ?
I did no such thing. Word "Armenia" means a specific thing. "Armenians" mean another thing. So you're correct to say
But if a town populated by only Armenians living in, say, France was attacked by, say, German forces, you wouldn't say that Germany attacked Armenia. Germany attacked France, because it's about the country.
Speaking of ships, according to the maritime law, vessels flying a country's flag are considered an extension of that country's territory. So legally, yes, attacking a US carrier would be the same as attacking the USA.
Until now, I was being neutral regarding who's at fault, but you keep insisting that Armenians are the only victims here, and the land is allegedly historically theirs. Ok, let's assume that's true. I even agree that Armenians definitely lived there historically. But if what Armenians did in 1993 (capturing seven Azerbaijani-majority districts outside the enclave itself) is justified and OK, then what Russia is doing now in Ukraine is also justified and OK. There are plenty of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, especially in the occupied territories.
Now imagine the conflict in Ukraine is frozen for 20 years. And 20 years later, Ukraine takes back their internationally recognized territories. Will you also be claiming that Russians have historically lived there and hence it's not OK for Ukraine to recapture them?
You can't decide these things based on "historical territories", the international law exists for a reason, else everybody would be at each other's throats. How far back should we go? Do we arbitrarily pick a cutoff date? Draw a line in the sand? Should Italy start claiming the entirety of Europe because Rome once occupied it for half a millennium?
Again, a pedantic dispute. Armenia means different things under different context, and to different people. You are just trying to force a specific interpretation based on international law, one that has no real power nor influence over the specific topic.
In this wild hypothetical, would this Armenian town in France have French citizenship? If so then no, they would be attacking the French. However if these people were only Armenian citizens who were being harbored in France, then yes.
That is also a legal fiction utilized to pervade complications with international laws. Though its recognized by international law, it offers no real protections extended to non citizens under the flag. This is why you still hear of American ships flying under the flag of the Cayman Islands ect
You mean when they migrate more Azerbaijan citizens to the area to make a pretense for territorial disputes in the first place......? Kinda sounds exactly like what Russia was doing in the first place.
Yes to validate the winnings of territorial dispute for the side who has the most economically powerful friends.
Also, why are you still arguing...you were wrong.
So this is settled then right? Or are you going to make another excuse to stan for Azerbaijan?
Sure, if you completely disregard the international law, then yes, I concede that I'm wrong.
But by that logic, what Russia is doing is ok. Who cares if the laws says that territory is Ukraine's, there are Russians in there. Let them keep it.
And since my whole argument is based on respecting international law, I have nothing else to say. Especially since you managed to settle this decades long dispute so easily. Armenians good, Azerbaijanis bad. That will surely solve everything.
P.S.
How devious of the Albanians and Turks to start moving there 1000s of years in advance to later "denazify" the area.
Lol, my dude. Just because there are some situations where international law support material and historic reality, does not mean all situations which don't are inherently wrong.
The only way your example makes any sense is if you do not acknowledge the historical context. It also requires you to selectively apply the logical framework of international law so it doesn't apply to the land dispute that predates it.
Didn't you already admit that you were wrong and that azjeries broke international law? So it kinda seems like you either don't have an argument, or you are being very dishonest about your biases.
Lol, you are conflating Azerbaijan's founding with the region in which we were discussing. Can you make any kind of rebuttal that isn't based on logical fallacy?
The sexual tension is palpable. Will y'all just fuck already?
I don't fuck on my first Lemmy thread.
This is NCD, I was told there would be fucking. Are you telling me I got all dressed up for nothing? Do you know how much it costs to dryclean a gimp suit???
See you on the second thread.