barbos
Contributor
What about Odessa massacre? or Mariupol?
Or that guy ukrainians shot simply because they were afraid of everything that moves?
-
Features
Not as important as petty rockets in Israel, but apparently Malaysian Airliner downed by rocket fire
- Thread starter Jimmy Higgins
- Start date
Or that guy ukrainians shot simply because they were afraid of everything that moves?
barbos
Contributor
--
barbos
Contributor
Who said anything about undercover?
Why would CIA people go to Friendly country like Ukraine undercover?
What would be the point?
What would you like rebels to do? nothing?
They are a current authority in the area, so fuck off with your retarded advices and "knowledge" what a plane can or can not carry.
As far as they concerned it can carry anything.
laruan
New member
an opinion from another part of the globe
an opinion from another part of the globe that might put a different perspective on events
quote from http://harryroque.com/author/harryroque
/AUTHOR ARCHIVES: HARRYROQUE
Post navigation← Older posts
MH17 and war crimes Jul
24
Rate This
The shooting down of Malaysian Airlines 17 over the territory of Ukraine should indeed be a source of great alarm. To begin with, airline travel has toady become the primary mode of transportation for passengers. I log in no less than 50,000 miles per year because I am engaged in the practice of International Law. The 11 million Filipino diaspora worldwide rely on air travel to reach their place of work and to return to their loved ones here in the Philippines. In fact, the three Filipinos based in the Netherlands who perished in the ill-fated flight were part of that diaspora. The concern is if a civilian airliner could accidentally be fired upon by a surface to air missile in an area with an armed conflict, no air passenger is in fact safe today.
The incident, under existing air travel conventions, should primarily be investigated by Ukrainian authorities. This is because Ukraine remains sovereign over its airspace. This is part of its territory. But even if this is the case, the shooting down of a civilian airliner is a concern for the entire international community. This is because the shooting incident is a grave breach of the non-derogable norms of the laws and customs of armed conflict, International Humanitarian Law. Under this law, combatants and fighters must at all times distinguish between civilians, as protected individuals, and other combatants and fighters. The rules say that civilians must not be the object of attack. This is in line with the avowed purpose of the law, which is to spare civilians and other protected persons, of the adverse consequences of an armed conflict. This is why the Geneva Conventions, the treaty that restates the norms of International Humanitarian Law, remains today to be the only universally ratified convention in our planet.
Why is International Humanitarian Law (IHL) applicable to the incident?
It is applicable since there is an armed conflict in parts of Ukraine where pro-Russian separatists have taken up arms with the goal of either creating a new state, or to be reunified with Russia. IHL is applicable to both international and non-international armed conflicts. Here, the rules applicable appear to be those for non-international armed conflicts since it is uncertain if the support given by Russia to the separatists is sufficient to ‘internationalize” the conflict. Thus far, it appears that the separatists, while armed and financed by Russia, do not appear to be under either the effective or over-all control of Russia. In any case, the duty to distinguish between combatants and civilians is a positive obligation of all fighters regardless of the type of conflict.
So how does the application of IHL affect the incident?
In many ways. To begin with, the investigation, apprehension, prosecution and punishment of all those behind the shooting become the concern not only of Ukraine, but the entire international community. In fact, their apprehension and punishment under the doctrine of au dudire au adjudicare are an obligation of all states. Russia hence, must take steps, as do Ukrainian authorities, to investigate the incident and ensure their prosecution and punishment. In default of this duty, Russia is under a positive obligation to surrender the suspected perpetrators to the jurisdiction of a third state that is able and willing to prosecute them.
International precedents have also treated attacks on civilians also as threats to international peace. IHL, or jus in belo, is distinct form the law that determines the legality of the use of force, Jud ad bellum. Under the latter the UN Charter provides that the use of force is illegal save in instances of self-defense or when authorized by the UN Security Council itself. The Security Council, in turn, has characterized the duty of states to turn over suspected perpetrators of attacks against civilian airlines as a binding obligation of UN member states. This was why Libya had to later create a fund to indemnify victims of the Lockerbie incident where a Pan-American airline 747 was shot down in the airspace of Lockerbie, Scotland. Libya initially invoked the provisions of the Montréal convention to argue that it should exercise jurisdiction over the suspected Libyan bombers, but the Security Council, weary of a moro-moro, said that Libya should turn over the suspects to United States authorities, the flag state of Pan Am. Libya’s initial refusal to turn over the suspects became the grounds for the imposition of economic sanctions against it for a very long time. In fact, the sanctions were only lifted shortly before the ouster of Khadafy and after it agreed to put up the fund to indemnify the victims.
Apart from the duty to investigate and prosecute, can Russia incur additional responsibility for the incident?
This would depend on whether evidence can be presented to prove that the separatists are in fact acting for and on its behalf. In the case of the contras that were financed and used by the Americans in attempting to topple the then Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, the International Court of Justice said that the mere training and funding do not make the acts of the contras attributable to the United States, The Court said that it must be shown that the contras were under the effective control of the Americans so that their acts could be attributed to the latter; this means that all the acts of the contras should be shown as undertaken upon orders of the American. This is a very high threshold.
This is probably why the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia formulated an alternative test known as the Over-all Control test. Under this test it need only be shown that the third state shared the same military objectives as the armed insurgents, even if the daily course of battle is not dictated by the third state. The problem is that the ICJ in a later case of Bosnia vs., Serbia ruled that the correct test should still be the higher Effective Control test. Currently, it is uncertain which test should apply. Maybe the ill-fated MH17 incident will provide the answer.
Share this:
an opinion from another part of the globe that might put a different perspective on events
quote from http://harryroque.com/author/harryroque
/AUTHOR ARCHIVES: HARRYROQUE
Post navigation← Older posts
MH17 and war crimes Jul
24
Rate This
The shooting down of Malaysian Airlines 17 over the territory of Ukraine should indeed be a source of great alarm. To begin with, airline travel has toady become the primary mode of transportation for passengers. I log in no less than 50,000 miles per year because I am engaged in the practice of International Law. The 11 million Filipino diaspora worldwide rely on air travel to reach their place of work and to return to their loved ones here in the Philippines. In fact, the three Filipinos based in the Netherlands who perished in the ill-fated flight were part of that diaspora. The concern is if a civilian airliner could accidentally be fired upon by a surface to air missile in an area with an armed conflict, no air passenger is in fact safe today.
The incident, under existing air travel conventions, should primarily be investigated by Ukrainian authorities. This is because Ukraine remains sovereign over its airspace. This is part of its territory. But even if this is the case, the shooting down of a civilian airliner is a concern for the entire international community. This is because the shooting incident is a grave breach of the non-derogable norms of the laws and customs of armed conflict, International Humanitarian Law. Under this law, combatants and fighters must at all times distinguish between civilians, as protected individuals, and other combatants and fighters. The rules say that civilians must not be the object of attack. This is in line with the avowed purpose of the law, which is to spare civilians and other protected persons, of the adverse consequences of an armed conflict. This is why the Geneva Conventions, the treaty that restates the norms of International Humanitarian Law, remains today to be the only universally ratified convention in our planet.
Why is International Humanitarian Law (IHL) applicable to the incident?
It is applicable since there is an armed conflict in parts of Ukraine where pro-Russian separatists have taken up arms with the goal of either creating a new state, or to be reunified with Russia. IHL is applicable to both international and non-international armed conflicts. Here, the rules applicable appear to be those for non-international armed conflicts since it is uncertain if the support given by Russia to the separatists is sufficient to ‘internationalize” the conflict. Thus far, it appears that the separatists, while armed and financed by Russia, do not appear to be under either the effective or over-all control of Russia. In any case, the duty to distinguish between combatants and civilians is a positive obligation of all fighters regardless of the type of conflict.
So how does the application of IHL affect the incident?
In many ways. To begin with, the investigation, apprehension, prosecution and punishment of all those behind the shooting become the concern not only of Ukraine, but the entire international community. In fact, their apprehension and punishment under the doctrine of au dudire au adjudicare are an obligation of all states. Russia hence, must take steps, as do Ukrainian authorities, to investigate the incident and ensure their prosecution and punishment. In default of this duty, Russia is under a positive obligation to surrender the suspected perpetrators to the jurisdiction of a third state that is able and willing to prosecute them.
International precedents have also treated attacks on civilians also as threats to international peace. IHL, or jus in belo, is distinct form the law that determines the legality of the use of force, Jud ad bellum. Under the latter the UN Charter provides that the use of force is illegal save in instances of self-defense or when authorized by the UN Security Council itself. The Security Council, in turn, has characterized the duty of states to turn over suspected perpetrators of attacks against civilian airlines as a binding obligation of UN member states. This was why Libya had to later create a fund to indemnify victims of the Lockerbie incident where a Pan-American airline 747 was shot down in the airspace of Lockerbie, Scotland. Libya initially invoked the provisions of the Montréal convention to argue that it should exercise jurisdiction over the suspected Libyan bombers, but the Security Council, weary of a moro-moro, said that Libya should turn over the suspects to United States authorities, the flag state of Pan Am. Libya’s initial refusal to turn over the suspects became the grounds for the imposition of economic sanctions against it for a very long time. In fact, the sanctions were only lifted shortly before the ouster of Khadafy and after it agreed to put up the fund to indemnify the victims.
Apart from the duty to investigate and prosecute, can Russia incur additional responsibility for the incident?
This would depend on whether evidence can be presented to prove that the separatists are in fact acting for and on its behalf. In the case of the contras that were financed and used by the Americans in attempting to topple the then Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, the International Court of Justice said that the mere training and funding do not make the acts of the contras attributable to the United States, The Court said that it must be shown that the contras were under the effective control of the Americans so that their acts could be attributed to the latter; this means that all the acts of the contras should be shown as undertaken upon orders of the American. This is a very high threshold.
This is probably why the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia formulated an alternative test known as the Over-all Control test. Under this test it need only be shown that the third state shared the same military objectives as the armed insurgents, even if the daily course of battle is not dictated by the third state. The problem is that the ICJ in a later case of Bosnia vs., Serbia ruled that the correct test should still be the higher Effective Control test. Currently, it is uncertain which test should apply. Maybe the ill-fated MH17 incident will provide the answer.
Share this:
tupac chopra
Veteran Member
The latest headline from Yahoo Exclusive: Ukraine rebel commander acknowledges fighters had BUK missile
Here he is admitting it.
Seems he admits one tbning though.His relationship with the rebels (or other rebels) is a bit strained.
Here he is admitting it.
Oh...he is actually saying he doesn't know what his "partners" have. Oh well that would not have been much of a headline.
Seems he admits one tbning though.His relationship with the rebels (or other rebels) is a bit strained.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
The Rebels finally admitted that they had BUK's. Hopefully this thread can now be shut down!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/23/ukraine-rebels-buk-missile_n_5614002.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/23/ukraine-rebels-buk-missile_n_5614002.html
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,448
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Nope. Barbos already noted that even when they felt it was likely that the rebels were responsible for shooting down the civilian plane, the US and Ukraine were still 90% responsible.
barbos
Contributor
Well, pretty incoherent interview if you ask me.
Khodakovsky has already denied it and says he has recording of the actual interview.
And yes, there is/was some disagreement between separatist leaders.
Khodakovsky has already denied it and says he has recording of the actual interview.
And yes, there is/was some disagreement between separatist leaders.
Last edited:
You're just slinging mud hoping something sticks.
The plane wasn't going to the Ukraine, thus what a CIA agent going to the Ukraine would do is irrelevant.
The rebels *SHOULD* have cordoned off the area and let the experts in. That's what's normally done. Big countries have their own teams, when the crash is in a smaller place it's normally a team from one of the big guys. (It's simply a matter of demand--even the US only has a few such teams.)
tupac chopra
Veteran Member
No the rebels did not admit they had BUK's.
Are you deliberately spreading lies now?
See my post above.
This is a guy who doesn't get on with most of the rebels..and this is what he said.
"What resources our partners have, we cannot be entirely certain. Was there (a BUK)? Wasn’t there? If there was proof that there was, then there can be no question."
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
And he also says:
His admission that he doesn't know what the rebels "partners" are doing, which itself implies that Russia is deeply involved in supplying and assisting the rebels, in no way negates that he knew the BUK was in Luhansk and it was operated by the rebels or their partners in Russia. And you seem to be suggesting that because he's not in good terms with the Igor "Strelkov" Girkin, who got caught pants down boasting about downing the plane in social media, somehow makes this guy any less credible. What it shows is that the home-grown separatists in Ukraine are getting second thoughts about the rebellion being orchestrated from Moscow.
tupac chopra
Veteran Member
He doesn't know anything if we read the whole thing. He doesn't get on with them, so he is saying he heard things, and then is speculating.
I heard they had one too.
If the rebels truly had one then why would there be a need for Kiev to fabricate evidence?
If the rebels truly had one then what would be the need for the USA to hide what they know?
There is only one reason, and we both know what that is.
He knows nothing about a BUK until after the tragedy had already happened.....which is when the false evidence began to appear.
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
What false evidence? The BUK he refers to was spotted in Luhansk beyond any reasonable doubt, so it is not inconceivable that he heard it from his fellow separatists from Luhansk directly. And like the guy says, he doesn't know what the rebels that are coming from Moscow are doing or what ... they keep the Ukrainians out of the loop, for obvious reasons.
tupac chopra
Veteran Member
No it wasn't . What evidence do you have? And please don't come up with some evidence there was a BUK in Luhansk in 2013.
barbos
Contributor
The guy is clearly look drunk, contradicts himself and ukrainians.
I mean if you believe everything he says then you have to conclude that ukrainians lied about having taken all Buks off the base before it was captured by separatists.
In other news ukrainian female pilot captured in russia says rebels don't have Buks. you're gonna believe that too?
This drunken "admission" is not credible.
I mean if you believe everything he says then you have to conclude that ukrainians lied about having taken all Buks off the base before it was captured by separatists.
In other news ukrainian female pilot captured in russia says rebels don't have Buks. you're gonna believe that too?
This drunken "admission" is not credible.
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,721
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
I could make all sorts of disparaging remarks, but I think quoting you is far more effective. Clearly.
tupac chopra
Veteran Member
As it has been looking more and more like the Kiev armed forces and not the rebels shot the rocket, there must have been a desperate scramble to still try to blame the rebels.
There is some suggestion now as to why the USA has been withholding evidence. It may be that they have evidence of men in Ukrainian army uniforms firing the missile. So the story might emerge that yes men in Ukrainian uniforms did it, but they were defectors ...
The Mystery of a Ukrainian Army ‘Defector’
There is some suggestion now as to why the USA has been withholding evidence. It may be that they have evidence of men in Ukrainian army uniforms firing the missile. So the story might emerge that yes men in Ukrainian uniforms did it, but they were defectors ...
The Mystery of a Ukrainian Army ‘Defector’
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,721
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
Based upon all that solid evidence produced by...?
tupac chopra
Veteran Member
Bardos you might find this interesting if you still are of the opinion it was a mistake. From one month before the plane was brought down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKKoKmUtQXE
laruan
New member
The Ukrainian Central Govt - such as it is - has lost three aircraft or so over rebel air space ; and have yet to work out why . So that would seem to indicate a lack of knowledge about anti aircraft missiles, which would lead one to think they could not actually fire one , which would then lead one to think they were not guilty of firing at MH17..