A few things stand out (spoilers of course) - the Chairman of Deutsche Bank had an armoured convoy with two vehicles with bodyguards. It makes sense seeing that someone was trying to kill him, but outside of that context it seems a lot. Most European politicians, including heads of state and government, have less today.
Second, he bled to death. I wonder what circumstances led to this, was the car too badly mangled and nobody could come to his aid? It's not something that happens instantaneously, i think, so there's some time to react. But maybe the blood loss couldn't be stopped ( severed legs, is there something that could be done? Would a tourniquet help?). No idea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Herrhausen#Assassinatio...
Like I said if this is credible there should be some evidence, but I’d conjecture that perhaps Putin could have been part of that too
I’d have thought people would be crowing about that if it was the case.
The anti-nuclear movement wasn't driven by money. Still isn't. The organisations that wanted nuclear power used money, the ones against used people's time.
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/image/sz.1.3984639/1408x792
>1% of the population attended that demonstration, and demonstrations that big matter. But they're not a matter of payment. People weren't paid to go there, they didn't even have their travel costs reimbursed: You can't reimburse 100k people and hope to keep that secret. You can't even reimburse the ~5k organisers.
Those sources are pretty shit, honestly. One says the Red Army Faction claimed responsibility (this is not disputed). The other cites an (unnamed) "former Red Army Faction" claiming they had meetings with Putin, but makes no connection with the Herrhausen assassination.
if the explosive went off more or less instantly, the speed of the car would not matter, not that it would be difficult to estimate anyway.
“An explosively formed penetrator, also known as an explosively formed projectile, a self-forging warhead, or a self-forging fragment, is a special type of shaped charge designed to penetrate armor effectively.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator
When I got older I was thinking maybe he was telling some tall tales, but I guess this could work as an EFP.
> as an Iraqi who have lived through the "war"
This is why it's never a great idea to assume anything and interested better to try to keep things neutral and reasonable.
There would be no wars without greedy politicians, but there would be no wars without soldiers too.
Propaganda is an effective drag net. We're all susceptible to some form of it. Outright lying works more effectively than it should.
You're just looking for a morale high ground, no need to pretend otherwise.
Do we call it the Russia/Ukraine war or the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
This is a discussion about a special kind of explosive and a first hand story on how it is used in a conflict. Leave politics aside.
Whilst I agree that the preceding comments are off topic with their own inflammatory agenda's I do think it's important in generally acknowledging the war was caused by a US led invasion based on lies.
Disclaimer: I fought there and lost people there, and after, but thankfully came out unscathed.
Sorry for the ones who died
Glib though your answer is it hasn't been that long since people were shot for not following orders. And at 17-18 years old you're unlikely to question much you're told to do, especially after training/indoctrination. Most of the time I had no idea what I was actually doing or why, but when you end up having to fight for your life and those of your muckers you do what you must trying to survive. Trails come if you survive.
I guess it's always a risk analysis if you will end up in the winning or losing team .
Combatants on both sides, obviously. Oh, and the civilians, too.
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcrip...
So if you're talking about these things today, it makes perfect sense to talk about the invasion in progress as it's the current event. If you bring up the Russo-Ukrainian war in a conversation, it's unclear about what part of the events since 2014 you're talking about, since presumably if you were talking about the current events, you'd be more specific. If you talk about the Iraq War, there can be no confusion with current events since it ended a decade ago.
I also don't quite buy the argument - see jhgb's reply - but that's definitely not why I flagged it.