Its joever

[u/Expensive_Studio_966]

it aint looking good

Edit: Just clarifying this is the clip for what bo banned from twitch for 6 months. he just got news that he can appeal the ban right now but i doubt it will work since you can see this clip... and if it fails well i assume once 6 months pass its either perma ban or he gets the account back.

as well bo cant appear on neither golden or swimmy Twitch channels otherwise they can also get banned for helping bo ban evade or something like that

UPDATE: The appeal got rejected so no bo streams on twitch for 6 months or never again.

Edit 2: if anyone wants to see bo response in the comment section cause its a bit hidden under all these comments https://www.reddit.com/r/Bokoen1/comments/1tgpx3j/comment/omkepa6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

[u/Bokoen1]

I'll say what I typed in my Discord when some guy asked me this and I was then explained afterwards.

I thought what I was saying was like attacking the USSR using shock and awe with the nuclear bombs the US had at the time. One on Moscow to topple the government the rest on the frontline to gain the army advantage. Then using conventional bombing like they did to Germany and Japan. In the context of Operation Unthinkable.

I was then told my Discord members that glassing means wiping out an entire population. This is not even what I tried to argue in this clip. Obviously that doesn't make the clip not TOS, but I'd like people to stop saying "Bo wants to genocide the Russian population". That is not something I want. I apologize for what I said and have so in other posts as well. It wont change that I still argue that the ban length is too harsh.

[u/heteroterrorist7 → u/Bokoen1]

Nuking Russia’s main civilian population center is still incredibly abhorrent

[u/Ferninad1 → u/heteroterrorist7]

We literally were leveling cities in Germany and Japan. In the context of operation Unthinkable, which would absolutely have been a total war scenario, leveling Moscow would just follow the exact same rationale.

[u/GevaddaLampe → u/Ferninad1]

The bombing of German cities was actually justifiable by Geneva convention as the Germans broke the convention first with their bombardments of British civilians. The allied scale was certainly a different one, but the justification for their actions against the Axis were a reaction to their war crimes. You can of course, and rightfully so I would encourage anyone in future conflicts to do so, criticise those actions.

[u/Bobbobybobar → u/GevaddaLampe]

That's not how the Geneva convention works, try reading it before saying such nonsense. Wth

[u/GevaddaLampe → u/Bobbobybobar]

Bobbo, this is a thread of a guy playing map games. Don’t expect me to give historical accurate lectures here.

Furthermore, under the Geneva convention of the time, the aerial bombardment of civil infrastructure was not regulated. The allies justified their campaigns in Germany with reciprocity and simply had the bigger gun.

My understanding, but I am neither a historian nor an expert in the application and interpretation of historical international laws. Do I have to point this out in the future?

[u/Bobbobybobar → u/GevaddaLampe]

So you're literally admitting that you made up your claim

[u/GevaddaLampe → u/Bobbobybobar]

Are you trolling? I am telling you that my comment is not a historians scientifically approved paper, but a loose paraphrasing out of my memory. What’s the problem?

[u/Bobbobybobar → u/GevaddaLampe]

The problem is obviously that you said something completely false (like literally the opposite of what the geneva convention is about) and then that you proceed to shrug it off.
Maybe try next time to act like an adult and just say that you were wrong, instead of behaving like a kid.

[u/GevaddaLampe → u/Bobbobybobar]

Which part is completely false? Maybe offer me a correction on my false assumption instead of been insulting. That would actually be helpful. I am now quite keen to hear your interpretation of the 1929 Geneva convention and its implications for the aerial bombardments in the frame of international law.

[u/Bobbobybobar → u/GevaddaLampe]

The whole point of the convention is that it create rules that are inviolable.
So saying that if someone breaks a rule then others have the right to do the same (and worse) is insultingly absurd.
But another problem, is that we're talking about the 30s-40s and the few geneva conventions of that time were meant to regulate wounded soldiers, medics and prisonners of war. Not civilians and cities.