Putin announces 'military operation' in Ukraine.

[oowee]

7 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Back on track.
The Republicans are (some might say cynically) using the huge amounts of money spent on Ukraine as an election strategy in the mid terms.
Couple this with western energy crises , and there is a ticking clock for the blank cheques that have been Ukrianes lifeline.

Meanwhile Elon Musk , smarting from being labelled a Putin sympathiser, because he suggested efforts for peace (I know the feeling ) has decided the 100,000 Starlink sets he sent to Ukraine to give them battlefield internet coverage (retails at $600 a set and $100 a month line rental) well they need paying for now, and has sent the US government the bill , hes said hell take 0.4 billion for cash , which is nice of him.

He should just right it off as advertising.

[welsh1]

7 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

 

Really ?
So they didnt suspend the human rights laws , and the military were just there for a jolly.?

Fun fact , Curfews are an infringement of human rights, as is virtual house arrest without a court order ?
If it looks like martial law.....

They used the emergency management act 1986, an act of parliment, a civil law.

The civil powers remained in control at all times.

But feel free to show me where the military took control

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

But feel free to show me where the military took control

As I pointed out , the military doesnt have to be in control for it to be martial law.
As Im sure youre aware , the quack quack bit is , even if it doesnt qualify to be martial law, for all intents and purposes , it is just the same thing.
Lets just be thankful it didnt happen here , as I could see some cities going up in flames if it did.

[Stonepark]

38 minutes ago, oowee said:

A shot fired by russian Mig close to our spy plane over black sea. !!!

SU27 Flanker fired the shot, but why was the RC135 over the Black Sea... Providing targeting information to Ukraine... Well that is an act of war against Russia.......

[Rewulf]

9 minutes ago, oowee said:

He should just right it off as advertising.

He was going to , he did state donated to , to start with , yet he got virtually no media coverage that he had done it, and then then slated for his twitter poll idea, and Musk can be a bit of a mardy bu m 😆

Musk being mardy , or Russian jamming ?

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-spacex-starlink-outages-report-2022-10?r=US&IR=T

1 minute ago, Stonepark said:

SU27 Flanker fired the shot, but why was the RC135 over the Black Sea... Providing targeting information to Ukraine... Well that is an act of war against Russia.......

Weve been doing it since day 1 , its a provocation that it looks like the Russians are getting tired of.
That and spy satellite information , but its not a proxy war , noooo you cant say that 

[Jaymo]

6 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

SU27 Flanker fired the shot, but why was the RC135 over the Black Sea... Providing targeting information to Ukraine... Well that is an act of war against Russia.......

Blimey. Either you have better inside info on reconnaissance mission than some, or that ganja is really potent! You smoking the Aussie version because apparently ignoring a mandate to stay indoors and open your front door will get you killed 😉

[welsh1]

15 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

As I pointed out , the military doesnt have to be in control for it to be martial law.
As Im sure youre aware , the quack quack bit is , even if it doesnt qualify to be martial law, for all intents and purposes , it is just the same thing.
Lets just be thankful it didnt happen here , as I could see some cities going up in flames if it did.

Lol martial law is the control by military or suspension of civil law, and as i have shown you the military never took control  and the civil side of the law remained in control at all times acting under a law passed by their government which act for the people and are put in position by the people and can be removed by the people.

Even mc ackowledges that his use of the term martial law was wrong.

They didn't suspend civil law ,they used civil law to enact powers, and the civil forces were not overwhelmed as quite clearly they were in control.

[Mungler]

32 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Meanwhile Elon Musk , smarting from being labelled a Putin sympathiser, because he suggested efforts for peace (I know the feeling )..

Your version of peace is starving the Ukrainians of support, thereby giving Putin everything he wants.

Granted, it is an interesting concept in finding peace and likely to be a hard sell to the people whose country has been invaded - mind you, without support they’d just be slaughtered, Putin would still get what he wanted and we would then have your version of ‘peace’.

Great plan. I’ll get a couple of dozen white doves in ready for release and a case a champagne for the peace celebrations 👍

[mchughcb]

3 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Lol martial law is the control by military or suspension of civil law, and as i have shown you the military never took control  and the civil side of the law remained in control at all times acting under a law passed by their government which act for the people and are put in position by the people and can be removed by the people.

Even mc ackowledges that his use of the term martial law was wrong.

They didn't suspend civil law ,they used civil law to enact powers, and the civil forces were not overwhelmed as quite clearly they were in control.

Certainly felt like it but that's okay. I recognise the legal definition rather than the outcome. I admit I was wrong. If people can't accept the legal definition of a special military operation then that's okay too.

 

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

They didn't suspend civil law ,they used civil law to enact powers, and the civil forces were not overwhelmed as quite clearly they were in control.

That *quack* looked suspiciously like *quack* martial law, with the army on the outskirts of the city , just to make *quack* sure everyone complied.

Best bit is , it was even worse in the Northern territories , with the army being used to forcibly remove a whole 9 infected people from remote townships.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/21/nt-communities-of-binjari-and-rockhole-in-hard-lockdown-as-covid-outbreak-expected-to-worsen

Like something out of a dystopian novel.

[Rewulf]

5 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Your version of peace is starving the Ukrainians of support, thereby giving Putin everything he wants.

Granted, it is an interesting concept in finding peace and likely to be a hard sell to the people whose country has been invaded - mind you, without support they’d just be slaughtered, Putin would still get what he wanted and we would then have your version of ‘peace’.

Great plan. I’ll get a couple of dozen white doves in ready for release and a case a champagne for the peace celebrations 👍

My version of peace involves people not killing each other, yours seems to involve giving them more and heavier weapons to err, kill each other ?
Have you ever read the book Needful Things by Stephen King, its entirely relevant to this situation.

[welsh1]

7 minutes ago, mchughcb said:

Certainly felt like it but that's okay. I recognise the legal definition rather than the outcome. I admit I was wrong. If people can't accept the legal definition of a special military operation then that's okay too.

 

Could you supply the legal definition of a special military operation please.

5 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

That *quack* looked suspiciously like *quack* martial law, with the army on the outskirts of the city , just to make *quack* sure everyone complied.

Best bit is , it was even worse in the Northern territories , with the army being used to forcibly remove a whole 9 infected people from remote townships.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/21/nt-communities-of-binjari-and-rockhole-in-hard-lockdown-as-covid-outbreak-expected-to-worsen

Like something out of a dystopian novel.

Lol every point you have made has been shown to be wrong with regard to martial law but you still persist.

you carry on, i am not going to continue after showing you quite clearly you were wrong.

[Jaymo]

20 minutes ago, mchughcb said:

Certainly felt like it but that's okay. I recognise the legal definition rather than the outcome. I admit I was wrong. If people can't accept the legal definition of a special military operation then that's okay too.

 

You don’t by chance work for the Labour Party, as that’s such as response. 
Admission of being in the wrong, but making a statement that they are still right! 

Tin foil is on isle 4

[Mungler]

17 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

My version of peace involves people not killing each other, yours seems to involve giving them more and heavier weapons to err, kill each other ?
Have you ever read the book Needful Things by Stephen King, its entirely relevant to this situation.

But your version is that Ukraine would have to capitulate and submit to Russian rule or be wiped out.

That’s not peace, that’s an outright Russian victory and both unacceptable to Ukraine and morally bereft.

[henry d]

43 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

SU27 Flanker fired the shot, but why was the RC135 over the Black Sea... Providing targeting information to Ukraine... Well that is an act of war against Russia.......

Oh dear, accepting the assumption and going back to the Falklands, we had help from Chile to insert special forces into Argentina so that they could give advanced warnings on plane movements. There was no mention of acts of war between Chile and Argentina, it happens all the time. 

[Stonepark]

35 minutes ago, Jaymo said:

Blimey. Either you have better inside info on reconnaissance mission than some, or that ganja is really potent! You smoking the Aussie version because apparently ignoring a mandate to stay indoors and open your front door will get you killed 😉

From the RAF own website....

RC-135W Rivet Joint is a dedicated electronic surveillance aircraft that can be employed in all theatres on strategic and tactical missions. Its sensors ‘soak up’ electronic emissions from communications, radar and other systems.

After collecting such electronic emmissions, they are not giving them to Putin are they?

[timps]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

You didnt imply it was a mistake, and you didnt ask me if it was a mistake, if YOU think this is what you meant , then try to form your statements better.

You think from what was written I thought it was a good idea to impose martial law?

If it wasn’t a good idea then has to be a ………. hint the definition is an action, decision, or judgment that produces an unwanted or unintentional result:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mistake

Army of liberation becomes an unintentional army of occupation is a ……..

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

You wrote this in a later post (as you well know) which then set about this rather pointless conversation.

It was the question I asked that you didn’t answer.

You said that I never asked you that question, which was completely wrong, it is in black and white, was asked and never answered so the timeline in this instance is irrelevant. If you are going to correct me make sure you are right.

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

How can I say , NO its not a mistake , when you didnt ask me a if it was a mistake 😆

But I did ask you.

“Are you now agreeing with me that Putin made a mistake declaring marital law?”

How is that an unanswerable question on its own?

No I am not agreeing with you…. NO…. No it wasn’t a mistake….HET

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

The problem is , I used the Americans as a sarcastic example of an army that SAID it was an army of liberation (on multiple occasions) but was an army of occupation from the get go, and went straight in killing thousands of civilians , you and fellow defender of Ukraine Mungler ,labelled this as irrelevant whataboutery.
I disproved your example , and you didnt like it.

How did you disprove it, putting SAID in capital letters for the first time now doesn’t alter what you first wrote which was none of the above.

Some parts of the countries ‘invade’ welcomed the USA, some parts didn’t, does that sound familiar?

Either way what has it got to do with Ukraine?

Have the USA a liberating or occupying army in the Ukraine at the present time?

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

OK is it under peaceful military occupation ?
Make your mind up, is this ,as you state, an army of liberation , or an army of occupation ??

You completely miss the point, I didn’t use the word ‘HOSTILE’ according to you therefore replace ‘mistake’ with ‘hostile’ in your previous point above:-

I didnt imply it was hostile, and you didnt ask me if it was a hostile , if YOU think this is what I meant , then try to form your statements better.

Or does that only apply to me, you can’t have it both ways.

This is what I mean with you, you change your stance mid post, I knew what you meant by hostile so it is easy to answer. But in this case  I argued your exact point above knowing you would argue back against it switching stance.

Yes, an army of liberation does become hostile but you have to declare martial law and enact it to make that change.

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Try reading what I said, condense it , give it some thought before replying.
Then read the highlighted a couple of times.

History of the outcome of conflicts and learning from them has nothing to do with whataboutery / strawman argument.

I purposely didn’t get into the debate of whether Russia should be there on this one, just they are now in the prosses of changing from a so-called army of liberation to an army of occupation due to imposing martial law.

Do you think martial law by foreign troops on a foreign land doesn’t make for heightened tensions and conflict with the once supportive locals ?

Edited October 20, 2022 by timps

[Rewulf]

5 minutes ago, timps said:

You think from what was written I thought it was a good idea to impose martial law? 
No idea where you get that from .

If it wasn’t a good idea then has to be a ………. hint the definition is an action, decision, or judgment that produces an unwanted or unintentional result:
I see , you want me to connect the dots, and work out what you mean.
I mean, you could just say what you mean clearly , and we could avoid all this waffle ?

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mistake

Army of liberation becomes unintentional and army of occupation is a …….. Huh ?

It was the question I asked that you didn’t answer.

You said that I never asked you that question, which was completely wrong, it is in black and white, was asked and never answered so the timeline in this instance is irrelevant. If you are going to correct me make sure you are right.

But I did ask you.

“Are you now agreeing with me that Putin made a mistake declaring marital law?”

How is that an unanswerable question on its own?
Because thats the first time you asked the question , you referenced asking the question previously, but YOU DIDNT.

No I am not agreeing with you…. NO…. No it wasn’t a mistake….HET

How did you disprove it, putting SAID in capital letters for the first time now doesn’t alter what you first wrote which was none of the above. Emphasis to help you understand.

Some parts of the countries ‘invade’ welcomed the USA, some parts didn’t, does that sound familiar?
Im sure they were all ecstatic that tanks were rolling down the street , and women were being searched on street corners, whilst the odd relative got shot because hew didnt stop his car quick enough.

Either way what has it got to do with Ukraine?

Have the USA a liberating or occupying army in the Ukraine at the present time? Not yet, give it time.

You completely miss the point, I didn’t use the word ‘HOSTILE’ according to you therefore replace ‘mistake’ with ‘hostile’ in your previous point above:-

I didnt imply it was hostile, and you didnt ask me if it was a hostile , if YOU think this is what I meant , then try to form your statements better.

Or does that only apply to me, you can’t have it both ways.

This is what I mean with you, you change your stance mid post, I knew what you meant by hostile so it is easy to answer. But in this case  I argued your exact point above knowing you would argue back against it switching stance.

Yes, an army of liberation does become hostile but you have to declare martial law and enact it to make that change. Dont be ridiculous !

History of the outcome of conflicts and learning from them has nothing to do with whataboutery / strawman argument. Read that back to yourself 3 or 4 times , and try and remember it next time you say to someone , thats irrelevant 'whataboutery'

I purposely didn’t get into the debate of whether Russia should be there on this one, just they are now in the prosses of changing from a so-called army of liberation to an army of occupation due to imposing martial law.

Again , its a case of perspective, and as Ive stated many times , according to western media, this Russian army has never been about liberation, its always been a hostile occupation force, the voices of the Donbass separatists are never heard.
Listen to the rhetoric on here, all they are there for is to 'slaughter' civilians' 
Ukrainian troops are obviously bullet proof, as they never die, and the Russians have to make do with just killing innocents ?

Do you think martial law by foreign troops on a foreign land doesn’t make for heightened tensions and conflict with the once supportive locals ?

Of course it does , what a strange question, but does martial law make it any worse than having your freedom took away, and both sides using your house as a bunker, while your town gets levelled ?
While youre wondering if the next shell has your name on it ?

 

[Jaymo]

36 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

From the RAF own website....

RC-135W Rivet Joint is a dedicated electronic surveillance aircraft that can be employed in all theatres on strategic and tactical missions. Its sensors ‘soak up’ electronic emissions from communications, radar and other systems.

After collecting such electronic emmissions, they are not giving them to Putin are they?

Eggs n sucking… Do know a bit about them 😉

[Rewulf]

35 minutes ago, Mungler said:

But your version is that Ukraine would have to capitulate and submit to Russian rule or be wiped out.

 

My version would have Ukraine never invaded in the first place, and its a strange course of events that lead to it.
If the start point was the Maidan coup, whether you accept American state dept involvement or not, THAT in itself did not lead to a Russian invasion, despite that being a perfect time to do it , do you accept that ?

Fast forward 5 years to Zelenskys presidency, and again whether you think he got there without western help, he promised to end corruption , and the civil war.
 

On 11 July 2019, Zelenskyy held his first telephone conversation with Russian president Vladimir Putin, during which he urged Putin to enter into talks mediated by European countries.^[124][125] The two leaders also discussed the exchange of prisoners held by both sides.^[125] In October 2019, Zelenskyy announced a preliminary deal struck with the separatists, under which the Ukrainian government would respect elections held in the region in exchange for Russia withdrawing its unmarked troops.^[122] The deal was met with heavy criticism and protests by both politicians and the Ukrainian public. Detractors noted that elections held in Donbas were unlikely to be free and fair, that the separatists had long driven out most pro-Ukrainian residents out of the region to ensure a pro-Russia majority, and that it would be impossible to ensure Russia kept its end of the agreement.^[122] Zelenskyy defended his negotiations, saying the elections would not be held before a Russian withdrawal.^[126] The agreement failed to ease the conflict, as the separatists continued their attacks and Russia continued providing them with weapons and ammunition.^[127] Several Ukrainian nationalist militias and former militias also refused to accept the agreement, including the far-right Azov fighters in the Luhansk region of Donbas. Zelenskyy met personally with some of these groups and tried to convince them to surrender their unregistered weapons and accept the peace accord. Andriy Biletsky, the leader of the far-right National Corps and first commander of Azov, accused Zelenskyy of being disrespectful to army veterans and of acting on behalf of the Kremlin by leaving Ukrainians vulnerable to Russian aggression.^[128][129] Ultimately, the peace deal failed to reduce the violence, much less end the war.^[127]

In December 2019, Russia and Ukraine agreed to resume talks mediated by France and Germany under the so-called Normandy Format, which had been abandoned in 2016; it was Zelenskyy's first face-to-face meeting with Vladimir Putin.^[130] In July 2020, Zelenskyy announced a formal ceasefire with the separatists — the more than twentieth such attempt since the war began in 2014.^[131] Although the ceasefire was frequently violated over the next few years and overall violence remained high, ceasefire violations in 2020 did decrease by over 50 per cent compared to the previous year.^[132]

 

So , its fairly clear that when he took the presidency , he had intentions for peace.
Now, either he couldnt control the far right thugs on the front line (there are videos where he tries to reason with them , and basically gets told to do one) so he later moved them into real army battalion groups, he legitimised the nazi battle groups.
He also struggled with certain elements in the government , who wanted the Donbass elements crushed..Do you accept that ?

We know by now , NATO was conducting training and exercises with the 'beefed up with nazis' Ukrainian military.
The weapons transfers started around 2020 , and rumours started about a forced repatriation of the Donbass.

In summary , Zelensky had two paths , a path to peace, where the Donbass conflict would have ended , quite possibly with the partition of some of it, this isnt in my opinion giving in to Russian aggression.
Or he could follow the path of violence , let the US pour weapons into the country , and talk about adding Ukraine to NATO via fast track, the very thing Russia would see as a red line.

Do you accept this ?

 

[Mungler]

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

My version would have Ukraine never invaded in the first place, and its a strange course of events that lead to it.
If the start point was the Maidan coup, whether you accept American state dept involvement or not, THAT in itself did not lead to a Russian invasion, despite that being a perfect time to do it , do you accept that ?

Fast forward 5 years to Zelenskys presidency, and again whether you think he got there without western help, he promised to end corruption , and the civil war.
 

On 11 July 2019, Zelenskyy held his first telephone conversation with Russian president Vladimir Putin, during which he urged Putin to enter into talks mediated by European countries.^[124][125] The two leaders also discussed the exchange of prisoners held by both sides.^[125] In October 2019, Zelenskyy announced a preliminary deal struck with the separatists, under which the Ukrainian government would respect elections held in the region in exchange for Russia withdrawing its unmarked troops.^[122] The deal was met with heavy criticism and protests by both politicians and the Ukrainian public. Detractors noted that elections held in Donbas were unlikely to be free and fair, that the separatists had long driven out most pro-Ukrainian residents out of the region to ensure a pro-Russia majority, and that it would be impossible to ensure Russia kept its end of the agreement.^[122] Zelenskyy defended his negotiations, saying the elections would not be held before a Russian withdrawal.^[126] The agreement failed to ease the conflict, as the separatists continued their attacks and Russia continued providing them with weapons and ammunition.^[127] Several Ukrainian nationalist militias and former militias also refused to accept the agreement, including the far-right Azov fighters in the Luhansk region of Donbas. Zelenskyy met personally with some of these groups and tried to convince them to surrender their unregistered weapons and accept the peace accord. Andriy Biletsky, the leader of the far-right National Corps and first commander of Azov, accused Zelenskyy of being disrespectful to army veterans and of acting on behalf of the Kremlin by leaving Ukrainians vulnerable to Russian aggression.^[128][129] Ultimately, the peace deal failed to reduce the violence, much less end the war.^[127]

In December 2019, Russia and Ukraine agreed to resume talks mediated by France and Germany under the so-called Normandy Format, which had been abandoned in 2016; it was Zelenskyy's first face-to-face meeting with Vladimir Putin.^[130] In July 2020, Zelenskyy announced a formal ceasefire with the separatists — the more than twentieth such attempt since the war began in 2014.^[131] Although the ceasefire was frequently violated over the next few years and overall violence remained high, ceasefire violations in 2020 did decrease by over 50 per cent compared to the previous year.^[132]

 

So , its fairly clear that when he took the presidency , he had intentions for peace.
Now, either he couldnt control the far right thugs on the front line (there are videos where he tries to reason with them , and basically gets told to do one) so he later moved them into real army battalion groups, he legitimised the nazi battle groups.
He also struggled with certain elements in the government , who wanted the Donbass elements crushed..Do you accept that ?

We know by now , NATO was conducting training and exercises with the 'beefed up with nazis' Ukrainian military.
The weapons transfers started around 2020 , and rumours started about a forced repatriation of the Donbass.

In summary , Zelensky had two paths , a path to peace, where the Donbass conflict would have ended , quite possibly with the partition of some of it, this isnt in my opinion giving in to Russian aggression.
Or he could follow the path of violence , let the US pour weapons into the country , and talk about adding Ukraine to NATO via fast track, the very thing Russia would see as a red line.

Do you accept this ?

 

No, to the extent that it is entirely irrelevant.

If you think the good natured and magnanimous Mr Putin started a war with several hundred thousand troops because of his concerns over the Donbass, well, that’s you projecting, that’s not what the Kremlin have ever said and that’s not what any were saying contemporary to the tanks rolling over the border.

You are clinging onto a notion, indeed the only notion, that might give Putin even a feint whiff of a reason that might sound plausible (and which it does not IMHO as a 3 points of the compass invasion was not necessary to iron out whatever trifling spat was occurring in the Donbass).

 

[Rewulf]

32 minutes ago, Mungler said:

No, to the extent that it is entirely irrelevant.

How is how it started irrelevant ?

 

32 minutes ago, Mungler said:

If you think the good natured and magnanimous Mr Putin started a war with several hundred thousand troops because of his concerns over the Donbass, well, that’s you projecting, that’s not what the Kremlin have ever said and that’s not what any were saying contemporary to the tanks rolling over the border.

You are clinging onto a notion, indeed the only notion, that might give Putin even a feint whiff of a reason that might sound plausible (and which it does not IMHO as a 3 points of the compass invasion was not necessary to iron out whatever trifling spat was occurring in the Donbass).

Apart from my wiki quote , I never mentioned Putin once.
Yet you stick to the same mantra over and over.
Are you remotely bothered about a peaceful solution , or is it just about 'kill them all' for peace ?

[Dave-G]

So who's winning the planets depopulation efforts contest up to now?

[Jaymo]

10 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

So who's winning the planets depopulation efforts contest up to now?

It’s a tie- they both gonna spray the champagne on the podium 

[timps]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

History of the outcome of conflicts and learning from them has nothing to do with whataboutery / strawman argument. Read that back to yourself 3 or 4 times , and try and remember it next time you say to someone , thats irrelevant 'whataboutery'

I do wonder if you ever read what you actually write, I know I’m not the first or only one to ask you this. Anyway, for the sake of getting back to the topic I’ll ignore all the pointless stuff you got wrong and move on.

Regarding the above you really need to understand the difference between the two.

History is simple, there are numerous similar conflicts throughout history where liberating armies that then imposed martial law have then been seen as an occupying army after time. This can and does promote conflict and unrest towards them from the locals.  

Can this historical knowledge of the failures repeated then be used in the current conflict, answer yes. Russia putting armed roadblocks and curfews in areas that are not at the front line will cause resentment, it has been seen before in other conflicts.

Whataboutry: Russian imposes martial law …. But what about USA they did to….

Can this knowledge then be used in the current conflict, answer no, it’s irrelevant all you can do with this knowledge is tar Russia and USA with the same brush.

You don’t seem to understand that you have to put some content in rather than just say USA bad. All people are asking is why is that relevant. So the USA invaded Iraq how does that knowledge help us understand what is going on in Ukraine?

The reasons why they failed does, but that’s history not just that they did it.

 

Do you ever read what you write (in bold)

Quote

Yes, an army of liberation does become hostile but you have to declare martial law and enact it to make that change. Dont be ridiculous !

But then

Quote

 

Do you think martial law by foreign troops on a foreign land doesn’t make for heightened tensions and conflict with the once supportive locals ?

Of course it does , what a strange question,

 

Troops on the front line don’t interact with the local civilians, under martial law they do.

You are saying that it is ridiculous that martial law makes the change to hostile in one breath and of course it makes for conflict in the other.