Can't say whether or not iggy is Russian, but his post is pretty much spot on and matches reporting by major news outlets and Amnesty International.

I would perhaps alter his post with Ukraine was bad too, and strengthen the fact that Russia continues to be bad today, while Ukraine has managed to more or less get its Nazi brigades under Government control and washing the worst of them out of service.

That being said, trying to silence any criticism of Ukraine by accusing the critic of being a Russian troll isn't as clever as you think it is.

No, what you demonstrated is that your knowledge is as shallow as the AI summary you supposedly didn't learn it from.

This is easily demonstrated by the fact that you think felony murder is proximate cause in general.
Only a 2 states still have a concept of proximate cause felony murder, and it has been outright abolished in the rest of the Western world with common law roots.

Parents example was that:
If Ukraine strikes Chernobyl in a conflict with Russia, who has committed the crime of invasion, then Russia is responsible for the secondary crime of striking a nuclear power plant.

That formula is roughly equivalent to the proximate cause theory of felony murder- something practiced almost nowhere in this world.
Ergo, you were wrong. I'd say it wasn't your fault, you were just regurgitating AI slop without the required intelligence to know you needed to read deeper- but I think I'm tired of cutting you fucking morons slack for your failed attempts at AI debunking.

Strawman.

I claimed no such generalizations.
The topic here was false flag operations. Both sides are demonstrably guilty of them.
Any means justify your ends. The only difference between you and a MAGA dimwit, is that they have succeeded in getting their strongman in office, and you're really pissed off that they beat you to it.
If you would stop for one second and evaluate what you were saying, you'd see that it was Machiavellian drivel.

I'm going to quote some text from an independent panel evaluating an Amnesty International report on potential Ukrainian International Humanitarian Law violations:
The outcry against any criticism of Ukraine for violating IHL simply because it is the victim
of an armed attack is legally and morally unjustified . Both Russia and Ukraine must comply
with the same rules of IHL . This total separation between the law prohibiting the use of force
in international relations , traditionally referred to as jus ad bellum , and IHL , which is part of
what was traditionally referred to as jus in bello , the law applicable in war , is essential for the
effectiveness of IHL . This is because all belligerents claim that they are fighting for a just cause
and most of those who fight believe that their cause is just and their adversary's cause unjust .

You're in the camp that IHL violations are justified simply because they have been attacked.
I'm in the camp of labeling you correctly what you are: a piece of shit Machiavellian protofascist.
You try to silence any and all criticism of your side's wrongdoings by claiming someone else is invoking a false balance fallacy, clearly having no understanding what that even is.
What you are doing isn't even a fallacy- it's just being stupid.

Strawman.

I claimed no such generalizations.
The topic here was neo-nazi mercenaries. Both side demonstrably have them.
Any means justify your ends. The only difference between you and a MAGA dimwit, is that they have succeeded in getting their strongman in office, and you're really pissed off that they beat you to it.

Strawman.

I claimed no such generalizations.
The topic here was false flag operations. Both sides are demonstrably guilty of them.
Any means justify your ends. The only difference between you and a MAGA dimwit, is that they have succeeded in getting their strongman in office, and you're really pissed off that they beat you to it.

Fuck off, fascist-enabling slime.

If you don't want to invoke comparisons to the other side, then do not criticize the other side for something your side also did.

This is gross misuse of the phrase "both sides". I'm just trying to figure out if it's because you're legitimately stupid, or if you're deliberately trying to mislead.

Both-sides would be to try to claim that both Russia and Ukraine are equally justified in this combat. They are not. Russia is the aggressor, and nothing can change that.
However, if we're to say that the criteria for being "the bad guy", is state-sanctioned neo-nazis with guns, then quite literally, indisputably, both sides are the bad guy.
This shit is well documented.

Dumbfucks like you are frankly terrifying. Is there anything you won't look away from as long as it's furthering your rhetorical goals?
An entire population made that mistake back in the 30s.

The key is your accomplices.
See reply to AC.

The analogy you presented was one where the liquor store clerk shot someone during the robbery.
That does not invoke the felony murder rule for those committing the crime.

And you sound like a fucking moron for denying facts because they're inconvenient to you.

MAGA twats, and you ravenous illiberal twats are both extremist pieces of shit.
It is demonstrable that both Russia and Ukraine are bullshit propagandists.
It is demonstrable that both Russia and Ukraine have a problem with neo-nazis in their ranks.

There is only one rational viewpoint, and that is the both sides viewpoint.
Anything else is Machiavellian horse-shit.

Why am I not surprised you use an LLM for knowledge, lo.

You're referring to the felony murder rule.
That requires you both to be committing the crime. They have to be your accomplice- not your accessory.

I.e., if during a robbery, some random person in the store shoots someone else trying to shoot you- you are not in legal jeopardy for murder.
If during a robbery, the clerk shoots someone other than a participant on accident, you are not in legal jeopardy for murder.
If during a robbery, your accomplish shoots someone- then you are in legal jeopardy for murder.

I think you're confused about what you replied to.

Aw, your brain crashed. Cute.

Are you trying to imply that 44 out of 50 states don't have Democrats in power at some local level?

That's because you're small minded and ignorant.

Voter Suppression is a large catch-all.
It includes cases of hard voter suppression, and cases of soft voter suppression.
Hard voter suppression- there is no equivalency- Democrats tend not to play that game. But hard voter suppression is a miniscule fraction of voter suppression, and nominally against the law.

Things like "removing poll booths" do not make it so people can't vote. It makes them less likely to vote by putting an easily surmountable, but statistically effective, obstacle in their way.
This is done for an obvious reason- because Republicans don't benefit from high turnout in national elections.
Things like holding election days off of consolidated days has the same effect- it puts an easily surmountable obstacle in the way of voting- that's because Democrats do not benefit from high turnout in local elections, statistically.

No matter how you swing it- they are equivalent.

No, absolutely not.
You cannot be tried for murder because someone else shot someone while you were committing a crime.
There are, of course, other laws that you can be in violation of.
I'm not aware of any statute for murder that includes "being indirectly responsible for the unintentional killing of someone".

This sounds like the wive's tale that was commonly told to children about legal guilt by association.

What if you're being attacked, and your mercenaries are literally sporting neonazi imagery?

That particular little cubbyhole of Europe is a hotbed for fascist fucks, on both sides of the imaginary line in question.
If you can't internalize that without suffering extreme cognitive dissonance because of your support of one of those sides- then you're the troll, you just don't fucking know it.

Ya, I mean they would never blow up a pipeline in the middle of the Baltic- because the fallout would be immense if they were caught.
Cough.

That being said- It was probably Russia. But your thinking on the matter is fundamentally broken. Ukraine and Russia both have a history of false flag attacks in this war.