unicorn

In the meantime, Russian ships have wisely abandoned their Syrian bases, according the satellite imagery: https://news.usni.org/2024/12/10/satellite-photos-show-russian-navy-exodus-from-syria-syrian-missile-boats-sunk-at-pier Before: After:

Actually, the last data from the World Health Organization puts Russia at #17 (out of 189 countries). Most of the top-drinking countries are from cold, what I would consider depressing places. Each of the three Baltic countries ranks in the top 10. Canada bucks the trend at #57, and frigid Norway is #80. What else is there to do on those long, cold Canadian and Norwegian nights? The US is at #45, and Thailand is at #64. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption_per_capita (the 2nd chart is the one which lists the countries from highest to lowest)

There you go again with more lies. The website you provided, as you know (since you provided the link), says nothing about what the building was used for, and discusses ONLY its architecture and the Russian bombing. You have given no reference to counter my reference which stated it was a residential building. Even if it were true (which it isn't) that this is a government building, that would still not make it a military target (unless it had a military function, such as the Pentagon in the US, but even you didn't allege that to be the case). As for your photos, the fact that a bus has an agriculture company's name on it doesn't mean it wasn't transporting Russian troops at the time, obviously. You provide links without quotes, hoping no one will check up on your lies, but--sorry for you--I did.

I don't think that almost anybody believes that sex among consenting adults is ugly, indecent, or shameful. If that were the case, the human race would no longer exist. The only people who actually believed that, at least to my knowledge, belonged to a religious group called the Shakers. They renounced all sexual activity in its entirety. They were able to recruit a few nut-cases, primarily during the 19th century, and tried to sustain a community by adopting orphans into their communities. Under no circumstances were any men and women allowed to cohabitate. In fact, if visiting married couples needed to pass by their community and rent rooms, the husband and wife had to stay in separate buildings. Unsurprisingly the sect essentially died off towards the end of the 19th century. For obvious marketing/sustainability reasons, almost every other Abrahamic religion heeds the apparently God-inspired admonishment to "be fruitful and multiply." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers "...During the mid-19th century, an Era of Manifestations resulted in a period of dances, gift drawings, and gift songs inspired by spiritual revelations. At its peak in the mid-19th century, there were 2,000–4,000 Shaker believers living in 18 major communities and numerous smaller, often short-lived communities. External and internal societal changes in the mid- and late-19th century resulted in the thinning of the Shaker community as members left or died with few converts to the faith to replace them... Ann Lee's doctrine was simple: confession of sins was the door to the spiritual regeneration, and absolute celibacy was the rule of life. Shakers were so chaste that men and women could not shake hands or pass one another on the stairs... Shakers were celibate; procreation was forbidden after they joined the society (except for women who were already pregnant at admission). Children were added to their communities through indenture, adoption, or conversion. Occasionally a foundling was anonymously left on a Shaker doorstep. They welcomed all, often taking in orphans and the homeless. For children, Shaker life was structured, safe and predictable, with no shortage of adults who cared about their young charges. When Shaker youths, girls and boys, reached the age of 21, they were free to leave or to remain with the Shakers. Unwilling to remain celibate, many chose to leave; today there are thousands of descendants of Shaker-raised seceders...". The only comment I could add was that, among the adopted children, not just many, but most chose to leave the community. Only a tiny fraction of people believe that adult sex is ugly, indecent, and/or shameful.

Stupid statement, again. The target was a VERY legitimate military one, and care was taken to minimize collateral damage. The proof's in the pudding: only the general and his military aide were killed. Russian bombings of civilian targets, with no military objective and multiple civilian deaths, have been numerous, as you are well-aware. Only an insane person would compare the two. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-air-attacks-pound-kharkiv-injure-several-people-ukraines-officials-say-2024-10-28/ "A Russian guided bomb attack on Kharkiv on Monday shattered much of the Derzhprom building, one of the most celebrated landmarks in Ukraine's second city, dating from the 1920s. Six people were injured in the 9 p.m. (1900 GMT) strike, adding to 13 wounded in an earlier overnight bomb attack on the city. In the central Ukrainian city of Kryvyi Rih, a Russian missile struck a three-storey residential building, killing one person and wounding at least 11... "The occupiers have struck an iconic symbol of the city, known to all residents of Kharkiv," Oleh Syniehubov, governor of Kharkiv region, wrote on Telegram. He said several floors had been destroyed. The Derzhprom building, placed on the "tentative" list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites, was completed in 1928 when Kharkiv was the capital of Soviet Ukraine...". Obviously no military advantage to be gained: the only purpose was to terrorize civilians and destroy a cultural heritage. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/06/russian-strike-on-crowded-ukraine-market-leaves-many-dead-blinken-visit "A Russian strike has hit a crowded market in the Ukrainian city of Kostiantynivka, killing at least 17 people, as the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, was in Kyiv for an unannounced visit, his first for a year to the Ukrainian capital. Ukrainian officials said a further 32 people were wounded in the attack...". Once again, bombing a civilian food market has no military objective. The only goal, clearly, comprises terrorizing the civilian population.

What you said makes zero sense (as usual). If a general is a legitimate target in a war, then killing him is not a terrorist act. Duh. However, the many civilians the Russian forces have killed and targeted, as well as civilian infrastructure, are examples of terrorist activity. Russians attack civilians and civilian structures. Ukrainians attack legitimate military targets. Big difference. And use of chemical weapons, in Syria as in the Ukraine, constitutes a war crime. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-breached-global-chemical-weapons-ban-ukraine-war-us-says-2024-05-01/ "...Chloropicrin is listed as a banned choking agent by the Hague-based Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which was created to implement and monitor compliance with the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). German forces fired the gas against Allied troops during World War I in one of the first uses of a chemical weapon. Earlier this month, Reuters reported the Ukrainian military as saying Russia has stepped up its illegal of use riot control agents as it presses its biggest advances in eastern Ukraine in more than two years. In addition to chloropicrin, Russian forces have used grenades loaded with CS and CN gases, the Ukrainian military says. It says at least 500 Ukrainian soldiers have been treated for exposure to toxic substances and one was killed by suffocating on tear gas...".

No, I won't call it.

I've heard some suggest James Franco: https://hollywoodlife.com/feature/luigi-mangione-movie-tv-series-5353564/ https://www.wideopencountry.com/internet-is-already-fancasting-who-will-play-luigi-mangione-in-biopic/ Ezra Sosa: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/yep-luigi-mangione-documentary-already-171707085.html "...The most popular fancast is Dave Franco, and honestly the resemblance is uncanny. "No audition needed. I crown you Luigi!" one TikToker says in the comments, while another jokes, "He was born for this Role.. it is destiny."...".

Is "obscene" defined elsewhere? I personally wouldn't consider sex among consenting adults obscene. I would consider sex with children and/or animals obscene, obviously.

I don't think it's known yet who's responsible. My first thought was that it could be the Ukrainians. I suspect the Syrians don't have the resources to carry out such a plot against Assad...

https://news.sky.com/story/igor-kirillov-russian-general-in-charge-of-nuclear-troops-killed-by-blast-in-moscow-13275251 "A senior Russian general in charge of nuclear protection forces has been killed by a bomb hidden in an electric scooter, Russia's investigative committee says. Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, who is in charge of Russia's Nuclear, Biological and Chemical [weapons], died in the street outside a block of flats about four miles (7km) southeast of the Kremlin... Photographs posted on Russian Telegram channels showed two bodies lying in the blood-stained snow next to the wrecked entrance to a building....". (Warning: Vinapu, since you won't look at stories showing the bodies of murderers, look no further)

Were the subjects of all of these films consenting adults?

Yes, he is! Unfortunately, it's likely that instead of a wonderful life as a gorgeous man (his grandmother apparently would have left him a small fortune), he'll probably spend the rest of his life behind bars.

Not recognized by YOU, personally, as politically motivated (supposedly, although I doubt that even that's true). Everybody, including those judges, recognized that the charges were politically motivated, although that was not their task. Their task was to decide whether the trial deviated from fair international standards for legal proceedings, and the document you produced proved just that: "FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT 1. Decides, unanimously, to join the applications; 2. Declares, unanimously, the complaints under Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention admissible and, by a majority, the remainder of the applications inadmissible; 3. Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;" Or, more specifically: "102. The Court observes that the applicants’ complaints about the manner in which evidence was admitted and assessed and the way the witnesses were examined converge on the same underlying allegation that the criminal proceedings against X and the two applicants had been structured in a way which rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair. They effectively alleged that X’s conviction in separate accelerated proceedings had been instrumental in circumventing important guarantees they would have been entitled to if all three co-accused had been tried together. Likewise, the complaint lodged under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention about the formulae used in the judgment against X and the prejudicial impact which that had on the applicants’ sentence, essentially refers to the same underlying issue. It follows that even though each of the complaints under Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3(d) of the Convention would in principle be capable of raising a separate issue under the Convention, in the present case it is appropriate to treat the specific allegations as elements of general fairness. 103. In the present case, the criminal charges against the applicants were based on the same facts as those against X, and the three individuals were accused of conspiring to steal the same assets. It is therefore undeniable that any facts established in the proceedings against X and any legal findings made therein would have been directly relevant to the applicants’ case. In such circumstances, it was essential for safeguards to be in place to ensure that the procedural steps and decisions taken in the proceedings against X would not undermine the fairness of the hearing in the subsequent proceedings against the applicants. This was particularly so, given that the applicants were legally precluded from any form of participation in the disjoined proceedings as they had not been granted any status which would have allowed them to challenge the decisions and findings made therein. 104. The Court has previously highlighted the first and most obvious guarantee to be secured when co-accused are tried in separate sets of proceedings, notably the courts’ obligation to refrain from any statements that may have a prejudicial effect on the pending proceedings, even if they are not binding (see Karaman, cited above, §§ 42-43 and 64-56). If the nature of the charges makes it unavoidable for the involvement of third parties to be established in one set of proceedings and those findings would be consequential on the assessment of the legal responsibility of the third parties tried separately, this should be considered as a serious obstacle for disjoining the cases. Any decision to examine cases with such strong factual ties in separate criminal proceedings must be based on a careful assessment of all countervailing interests, and the co-accused must be given an opportunity to object to the cases being separated. 105. The second requirement for the conduct of concurrent proceedings is that the quality of res judicata would not be attached to facts admitted in a case to which the individuals were not party. The state of the evidence admitted in one case must remain purely relative and its effect strictly limited to that particular set of proceedings. In other words, in the present case no finding of fact made in the proceedings against X could have been admitted in the applicants’ case without full and proper examination at the applicants’ trial. Moreover, the procedure followed by the court in X’s case had been accelerated, and the establishment of facts had been a result of plea-bargaining, not the judicial examination of evidence. Consequently, the facts relied on in that case had been legally assumed rather than proven. As such, they could not have been transposed to another set of criminal proceedings without their admissibility and credibility being scrutinised and validated in those other proceedings, in an adversarial manner, like all other evidence. 106. These two basic requirements have not been complied with in the present case...". It seems you guessed incorrectly that no one would actually look at your reference, and you'd get away with another one of your lies. Your lack of shame is simply astounding. You have absolutely NO capacity for shame for your lies.

Yes, probably on the spectrum. We used to call that Asperger's Syndrome. Just ignore him. No point arguing.

Actually, no, I've haven't seen/heard this in any media reports (TV or radio) in the US. None of the pundits feel democracy is even likely, much less guaranteed. Very few are bold enough to make any predictions. My understanding is that the Turks helped the rebels, so I have some hope that the Turks will have more influence with the new regime than the Russians. However, that's just a hope on my part. I'm certainly not willing to stick my neck out to make a prediction.

At this juncture, the future of Syria is much in the air. I doubt that even the best experts in the USA and RF would feel confident in predicting what will happen. Yes, it will probably be pretty bad for the Kurds, although even that isn't certain. For non-Kurdish and non-Shiite Syrians? Things might not be so bad. It's difficult to imagine that things could be worse than under Assad. I suspect that some country will pay big $$$ for the military bases, be it the Russians, Turks, or someone else. If so, if the rebels don't pocket everything in the way Assad did, that could help the local economy. A friendly alliance with Turkey could end up well (except for the Kurds, of course).

Yes, I think that was the problem.

Interesting, but irrelevant to the question as to whether or not the new government might demand the return of Assad as a precondition to letting the Russian Federation keep its bases. You are the Tsar of deflection and throwing out irrelevant information.

I guess lots of newspapers of the day and magazines have poor taste, per your standards. I'd rather taste good! 😄

I certainly agree that our disdain for the victim shouldn't lead to discarding the consequences for murder. That being said, there were quite a few people celebrating the victim's death before the apparent perpetrator was known. As for Romania, Ceaușescu was one of the most brutal, sociopathic dictators of all, with kiloliters of blood on his hands. I suspect most people, especially Romanians, cheered when they shot him. I suppose that in his case it's debatable as to whether he was murdered or whether the "trial" to which he was subjected was legal (in which case it was merely a legal execution). I can guess what Assad's fate will be if the Syrians ever get a hold of him. I will never forget the words of those who shot Ceaușescu: "It's a pity we can kill him only once!". Given Ceaușescu's 60,000 victims, I remember thinking "Truer words have not been spoken." He was caught with $1 billion trying to flee the country he'd impoverished. While a more formal trial would have been more kosher, there were probably at least 1000 people clapping their hands for every person who shed a tear over his death. But the Germans let Honecker get away scot-free, for reasons I don't fully understand (though he wasn't as awful as Ceaușescu).

Syrians might decide it's payback time: https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/16/russia-vetoes-u-n-effort-to-finger-those-responsible-for-syrian-chemical-weapons-attacks/ "November 16, 2017, 5:19 PM Russia on Thursday vetoed a U.S.-drafted resolution to extend the mandate of United Nations chemical weapons inspectors in Syria... The Russian “no” essentially shutters a U.N.-mandated chemical weapons inspection unit created two years ago to hold those who used sarin gas and other toxic agents accountable for their crimes. The team previously found the Syrian government and the Islamic State, or ISIS, had unleashed chemical weapons on civilians in Syria...".