Autistic danish baby-commie (the liberalism is still strong in this one).
I can answer that in two ways:
I take PDFs of scans of print books and turn them into epubs (ebooks), and uploading them to my website
Or, as is implied from my first comment, I am working on Russian Justice, turning it into an epub.
Thanks. I think I got it.
Yes… And what do you mean by that?
crime prevention comes down to preventing the circumstances which lead people to commit crimes in the first place
I keep being reminded of the books I’m working on. I guess it just means we have know this stuff for a hundred fucking years.
Note the recommendation of the Conference in this regard. “In order to insure the effectiveness of judicial work, the judges should endeavor to ascertain the economic and social-political results of the verdict rendered by them, being assisted in this work by public opinion organized around the judicial institutions.” The same body placed a responsibility for prevention of crime on its courts. It was not only a duty to pronounce a sentence on a guilty person, but the tribunal must by means of its favorable position discover the reason for the circumstance of the crime. The recommendation ran, “The court, when trying a case, should not only establish the guilty persons but should also disclose those economic and organizational defects and shortcomings which create a favorable atmosphere for criminal actions, signalizing such circumstances to the attention of the Party and Soviet organs by means of special riders. The results of such signalizing should be checked up from time to time.”
The chanting when DPRK flags are on screen is [something I can’t hear] and “gegen faschismus” | “against fasicsm”
Like we did appeasement in the 40s already, it was a bad strategy.
No no. It was a great strategy. Germany went to war. It was just that Germany also went to war with us, which wasn’t what we wanted.
Presumably the reasons for the initial attack still exist
Then… they failed? You’re saying that if they win, they fail. Or at least, they can’t win hard enough to actually get what they want.
You’re also assuming Russia wants territory. If Russia wanted, say, Ukraine not being admitted to NATO, and they can get a peace that ensures that, then there isn’t a reason for them to invade again. Or if Russia wanted UKR to stop shelling the eastern regions, then annexing just them might stop that, in which case, they don’t have any reason to invade again.
But why? Why would Russia invade again in a few years? What’s the logic behind that? Just “putler bad”, “russia bad”. Or is there any actual reasoning on why?
Ok so, assuming the Russian army is the laughing stock of the world, then why isn’t the Ukrainian Army an even bigger laughing stock?
For a long time I heard one thing after another about how incompetent the Russian army is. For 1 and a half years, the most incompetent, laughing stock of the world, army has been… losing?
My reaction to your comment.
Russia leaving is apparently never an option when they talk about possible solutions
Yes… it isn’t. Thats how reality works. Russia isn’t going to just up and leave. They aren’t going to have thousands of their own people killed and then just… nothing. They have goals, they want to meet them, and if not then at least get somewhat of a victory. The people in Russia aren’t going to like “oh, we just left”. I don’t fucking understand how people can say “the war ends when russia [just up and leaves]”. This isn’t fantasy land, that isn’t how it works. Russia will leave, if Ukraine negotiates a peace with them. If Russia wants land then UK has to negotiate for that not to happen.
This is the problem with “tankie”, nobody can actually define it.
You, attempting to refute that it’s “woke” but for liberals, proved that it is “woke” for liberals.
It did seem as if you were thinking that. But no, I take 100… well 80-90, year old books and polish them up for the modern age.