Malaysian airline MH-17 discussion thread

KahBoom

gandalf wrote: »

Looks like the Terrorists are showing their true colours and their actual regard for the people they claim to be protecting and representing.



http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/08/ukraine-urges-rebels-let-civilians-flee-20148551933968124.html

Ya and the Ukrainian pro-government 'terrorists' (meaningless word) are potentially committing war crimes, by using unguided rockets that kill civilians:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-killing-civilians

KahBoom

loughside wrote: »

should be enough now to bring Putler and Russia to court for warcrimes and terrorism.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715340/MH17-jet-shot-missile-launcher-Volvo-Ukrainian-says-footage-proves-pro-Russian-separatists-commandeered-truck-transport-weapon.html

A key clue has linked pro-Moscow rebels to the truck seen carrying the BUK missile system towards Russia hours after MH17 was downed, it is claimed.
The owner of what is said to be the only such white Volvo truck in the Donetsk region of Ukraine has identified his lorry and said it was commandeered by separatists who took over his premises nine days before the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 was shot out of the sky, killing all 298 people on board.
Footage shot by a clandestine Ukrainian police team showed an image of a BUK weapons system on a Volvo truck being smuggled out of eastern Ukraine in the early hours of July 18, the day after the plane crash.

Some Ukrainian says his truck was used to transport a BUK? Ok. That doesn't say anything about who shot down the plane though, as there's nothing definitive linking that BUK as having shot it down.

DeadHand

loughside wrote: »

The owner of what is said to be the only such white Volvo truck in the Donetsk region of Ukraine has identified his lorry

Sure.

I own the only red Fiat Punto in the Republic of Ireland and I'd know it anywhere.

comongethappy

KahBoom wrote: »

Ya and the Ukrainian pro-government 'terrorists' (meaningless word) are potentially committing war crimes, by using unguided rockets that kill civilians:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-killing-civilians

The use of unguided munitions even resulting in civilian death is not in itself a war crime.

Any tribunal would need to demonstrate deliberate intention to kill civilians on a large scale to be considered a war crime.

(Not to condone it)..... But a house being flattened by artillery is not automatically a crime.
Context is key.

KahBoom

comongethappy wrote: »

The use of unguided munitions even resulting in civilian death is not in itself a war crime.

Any tribunal would need to demonstrate deliberate intention to kill civilians on a large scale to be considered a war crime.

(Not to condone it)..... But a house being flattened by artillery is not automatically a crime.
Context is key.

Reckless negligence is a form of intent:

Anglo-American law has long recognized that gross recklessness is a form of intent (“Fraudulent intent is shown if a representation is made with reckless indifference to its truth or falsity”). That’s why reckless behavior even if unaccompanied by a desire to kill people – e.g., randomly shooting a gun into a crowd of people – has long been viewed as sufficient to establish criminal intent.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/21/netanyahus-telegenically-dead-comment-original/

Unguided weapons fired at a civilian area, qualifies as that.

In either case, it definitely "violates international humanitarian law, or the laws of war" as per the original article.

loughside

gandalf wrote: »

Looks like the Terrorists are showing their true colours and their actual regard for the people they claim to be protecting and representing.



http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/08/ukraine-urges-rebels-let-civilians-flee-20148551933968124.html

The wanton abuse of medical personnel and their facilities by pro-Kremlin scumbags in Eastern Ukraine is just another example of why these vermin should only be labelled as terrorists.
They have no principles, no religion, no moral scruples or any respect for humanity.
There is no regard whatsoever for the sick, the wounded, the old or weak, women or children, or anyone else who they often use as human shields. These individuals claim that they are the defenders of the Russian language but still kill at will including ethnic Russians.
The world will be a far better place when this useless trash is finally destroyed.

Disgraceful that certain posters on here trip over themselves to support these animals....

darkpagandeath

KahBoom wrote: »

Reckless negligence is a form of intent:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/21/netanyahus-telegenically-dead-comment-original/

Unguided weapons fired at a civilian area, qualifies as that.

I see, Unfortunately I'm not a Judge versed in international law that deals with war crimes legislation. What about unguided bullets form fire arms like AK-47 I assume they are considered a war crime if they kill civilians accidently ? And no i don't condone killing of civilians.

KahBoom

loughside wrote: »

The wanton abuse of medical personnel and their facilities by pro-Kremlin scumbags in Eastern Ukraine is just another example of why these vermin should only be labelled as terrorists.
They have no principles, no religion, no moral scruples or any respect for humanity.
There is no regard whatsoever for the sick, the wounded, the old or weak, women or children, or anyone else who they often use as human shields. These individuals claim that they are the defenders of the Russian language but still kill at will including ethnic Russians.
The world will be a far better place when this useless trash is finally destroyed.

Disgraceful that certain posters on here trip over themselves to support these animals....

Quote a single poster showing support of them.

What people have been showing up, is you and others hypocritical double standards, of criticizing one side as if your criticisms don't also apply to the other - and arguing in favour of sanctions on Russia and further escalation, when that's playing right into the narrative the US/west wants to create, for escalating the conflict.

The Ukrainian government forces are as much 'terrorists', for the potential war crimes they are committing. Human shields? Sounds very much like the way Israel hysterically accuses Hamas of using human shields, while Israel indiscriminately bombs Palestinian civilians - got any proof of that 'human shield' claim in Ukraine?

KahBoom

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I see, Unfortunately I'm not a Judge versed in international law that deals with war crimes legislation. What about unguided bullets form fire arms like AK-47 I assume they are considered a war crime if they kill civilians accidently ? And no i don't condone killing of civilians.

You know yourself the difference between a gun and an unguided rocket - you're being deliberately obtuse here.

Ash.J.Williams

Ukraine and the US have shot down civilian aircraft before so they are hardly going to pursue putin for warcrimes.

darkpagandeath

KahBoom wrote: »

You know yourself the difference between a gun and an unguided rocket - you're being deliberately obtuse here.

Yes I do Range and area of effect, Being unguided does not make it a war crime.

Elmer Blooker

we are now beginning to see what sanctions really mean, Polish jobs will be lost in the agriculture sector and the only choice will be emigration, thousands of ordinary working class Russians left stranded in Greece as budget tour operator Labirint goes bust, its always the ordinary people who pay the price in the USA's pursuit of global hegemony.

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

all that happens when a civilian aircraft is shot down is compensation and an apology.

WRONG. George H.W. Bush on the shooting down of an Iran Air civilian plane in 1988 by the US Navy -
"I will never apologize for the USA"

KahBoom

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yes I do Range and area of effect, Being unguided does not make it a war crime.

I doubt anyone is convinced, of the comparability of an aim-and-shoot gun, versus an unguided rocket raining down on a populated area; that's really facetious, so I'm not going to bother with you on that line of argument.

darkpagandeath

KahBoom wrote: »

I doubt anyone is convinced, of the comparability of an aim-and-shoot gun, versus an unguided rocket raining down on a populated area; that's really facetious, so I'm not going to bother with you on that line of argument.

Must have missed the mass deliberate bombardment of civilian targets by the Ukrainian army on the news.

gandalf

KahBoom wrote: »

I doubt anyone is convinced, of the comparability of an aim-and-shoot gun, versus an unguided rocket raining down on a populated area; that's really facetious, so I'm not going to bother with you on that line of argument.

But they are targeting the Terrorists who have taken up arms with the aid of an outside player in an insurrection against the legitimate government of the country. I would hold any country to task if they did not reassert their authority restore law and order over their territory that has been over run by mercenaries and criminals and based on some evidence posted earlier in this thread actual Russia forces.

Surely you have to concede hindering the work of medical workers in the fashion described in the Aljazeera article is wrong?

KahBoom

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Must have missed the mass deliberate bombardment of civilian targets by the Ukrainian army on the news.

darkpagandeath I'm not interested in arguing in circles with you just for the sake of it - you know full well that I have shown how recklesssness is a form of intent, in my previous post:

KahBoom wrote: »

Reckless negligence is a form of intent:

Anglo-American law has long recognized that gross recklessness is a form of intent (“Fraudulent intent is shown if a representation is made with reckless indifference to its truth or falsity”). That’s why reckless behavior even if unaccompanied by a desire to kill people – e.g., randomly shooting a gun into a crowd of people – has long been viewed as sufficient to establish criminal intent.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/21/netanyahus-telegenically-dead-comment-original/

Unguided weapons fired at a civilian area, qualifies as that.

In either case, it definitely "violates international humanitarian law, or the laws of war" as per the original article.

I'm not interested in tedious circular arguments with you - you're showing you've got dishonest intent in debate here, by being facetious and deliberately ignoring what's already been said - so sticking you on ignore.

Piliger

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

we are now beginning to see what sanctions really mean, Polish jobs will be lost in the agriculture sector and the only choice will be emigration, thousands of ordinary working class Russians left stranded in Greece as budget tour operator Labirint goes bust, its always the ordinary people who pay the price in the USA's pursuit of global hegemony.

I love it when the USA and the EU fcuks Russia. Cheering to the rafters.

KahBoom

gandalf wrote: »

But they are targeting the Terrorists who have taken up arms with the aid of an outside player in an insurrection against the legitimate government of the country. I would hold any country to task if they did not reassert their authority restore law and order over their territory that has been over run by mercenaries and criminals and based on some evidence posted earlier in this thread actual Russia forces.

Surely you have to concede hindering the work of medical workers in the fashion described in the Aljazeera article is wrong?

Yea hindering medical workers is wrong - and committing potential war crimes against civilians, like the Ukrainian forces are doing, makes them as good as 'terrorists' - again a meaningless word.

DeadHand

What's with this juvenile "Putler" nonsense anyway?

The Crimea is as much part of Russia as Conemara is part of Ireland. Ukraine was on the fast track to Nato membership which may have entailed, among other things, western war fleets in Sevastopol. Would Nato tolerate Russian war fleets in Miami or Portsmouth?

Russia isn't moving in on the West, the West is moving in on Russia.

gandalf

KahBoom wrote: »

Yea hindering medical workers is wrong - and committing potential war crimes against civilians, like the Ukrainian forces are doing, makes them as good as 'terrorists' - again a meaningless word.

OK then how would you deal with a group of armed "separatists" (does that make you feel better) who have illegally taken up arms against the state with help from an outside player which means they have access to heavy weapons then?

I certainly do not believe the Ukrainians are deliberately targeting civilians but they are deliberately targeting forces who have killed quite a number of their own troops and I would be interested in how you and others here would suggest they engage with such forces if those forces choose to embed themselves in civilian areas?

darkpagandeath

DeadHand wrote: »

What's with this juvenile "Putler" nonsense anyway?

The Crimea is as much part of Russia as Conemara is part of Ireland. Ukraine was on the fast track to Nato membership which may have entailed, among other things, western war fleets in Sevastopol. Would Nato tolerate Russian war fleets in Miami or Portsmouth?

Russia isn't moving in on the West, the West is moving in on Russia.

Russia has no Rights to parts of other countries, They used to be part of a soviet Union. Lines on maps change all the time, You cant run in going "Russian speakers" and all that. People in Ukraine want to be part of the west that is their choice.

DeadHand

gandalf wrote: »

But they are targeting the Terrorists who have taken up arms with the aid of an outside player in an insurrection against the legitimate government of the country.

A government that was never elected. That seized power by force aided by a significant far right, facist element who could just as easily be branded "terrorist".

darkpagandeath

DeadHand wrote: »

A government that was never elected. That seized power by force aided by a significant far right, facist element who could just as easily be branded "terrorist".

Are they not electing a new one soon ?

gandalf

DeadHand wrote: »

What's with this juvenile "Putler" nonsense anyway?

TBH what do you expect when Putin uses the "Sudetenland" playbook from 1938?

The Crimea is as much part of Russia as Conemara is part of Ireland.

Incorrect, Crimea is part of the sovereign nation of the Ukraine.

Ukraine was on the fast track to Nato membership which may have entailed, among other things, western war fleets in Sevastopol. Would Nato tolerate Russian war fleets in Miami or Portsmouth?

Where did you see this. It certainly has not been reported by any major media outlets I was aware of. Is this an assumption? The Russians had a long term lease on the base, it didn't give them the right in invade the territory.

At this stage you maybe right because when you have a neighbour who acts as aggressively as USSR Russia have then you do really have to see how you mitigate that.

Russia isn't moving in on the West, the West is moving in on Russia.

No the Ukraine sees more potential in doing business with a market of 500 million people than one with 140 million people. It's logical and basic economics.

DeadHand

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Russia has no Rights to parts of other countries, They used to be part of a soviet Union. Lines on maps change all the time, You cant run in going "Russian speakers" and all that. People in Ukraine want to be part of the west that is their choice.

It was an integral part of Russia centuries before the Soviet Union existed.

People in Crimea voted to be reunited with Russia, that was their choice.

Piliger

DeadHand wrote: »

A government that was never elected. That seized power by force aided by a significant far right, facist element who could just as easily be branded "terrorist".

The hypocrisy and irony is laughable.

darkpagandeath

DeadHand wrote: »

It was an integral part of Russia centuries before the Soviet Union existed.

People in Crimea voted to be reunited with Russia, that was their choice.

So were lots of places in the world, lots of places belonged to empires that no longer exist. how far back do we want to go ? I would hardly call the Crimea's vote sound.

DeadHand

Piliger wrote: »

The hypocrisy and irony is laughable.

Of the West?

Agreed.

DeadHand

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Are they not electing a new one soon ?

Hopefully.

comongethappy

DeadHand wrote: »

People in Crimea voted to be reunited with Russia, that was their choice.

When?

Do you mean that "vote" held under the barrel of a gun, with a 30% turnout & a 50-50 split in outcome?

(And the district of Sevastopol declaring a turnout of 100%+).