• TomHardy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah shelling Nuclear power plants and using depleted uranium ammo is something only NATO clowns can do, when Russia is using something radioactive, we suddenly start to think about the neighbors!1!!1!

      • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In what sense? That the very gentlemen who tipped their hats and said to Russia’s concerns on toxic ammo “bla bla”, now assemble because of the same concerns, are called reasonable?

        • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don’t have to be online all the time, you know. There are other things you can be doing with your life.

    • zurma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic but I’ll be charitable and assume you are.

      • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t understand if you are sarcastic? Literally a few months ago the Britbongs announced they sent depleted uranium ammo to Ukraine, known for causing increased cancer rates and birth defects in the regions they are used. Japan said they will donate trucks which were used during Fukushima and still are radioactive to Ukraine. Now, NATO suddenly cares about contaminates? LMAO this only proves Westerners see Ukrainians as subhumans just as they see Russians, they put them through stuff they would never accept on their soil.

        • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          anything on ‘the use of any tactical nuclear weapon’ or ‘the destruction of a nuclear facility’, what with that being what the conversation is about and all

          • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            …, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory…

            This you left out on purpose?

            • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              yes, what with it not being one of the conditions for an “immediate response”, and actually just being elaboration on the actual conditions

              thats why it says “or their proxies, or the destruction of a nuclear facility, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory”

              as opposed to “or their proxies, or the destruction of a nuclear facility, or dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory”

              so sure, on purpose, that purpose being treating the text as if it says what it actually says