freedom for Viktor Bout

[spooky lynx 73]

I have to agree with Pelham on this one. This guy sold weapons, knowing that they will be used to kill. ANd not only to kill soldiers but also civilians. That makes him part of the killing. He supplied the tools knowing how they will be used. A person like that deserves to be in Prison.

Count how many people are killed with kitchen knives and axes. How many die from diseases caused by alcohol and tobacco. And these people die every year, not only during some war or revolt. Knives manufacturer knows that they may be used as killing device (if not - he's total dumb). Does he become part of murder? Every year about 30000 people die in Russia in car accidents. Hell, we lost twice less people during Afghan war which lasted for 10 years! So should we send to jail car manufacturers?

Do you guys really think that people everywhere do have a choice to choose what they can do? Sorry, but some here only show a "Russia strong!!" attitude. Would you be butthurt if a weapon dealer from another country would be caught and sentenced to lifetime prison or death? Does the country matter or does the action/deal matters? Or would you just like to put a blind eye on crime/(tribal) genocide just because its more comfortable to excuse these atrocities with "political" or "people are worth/not worth" reasons?

Yes. I think people have brains and they may decide which things to do and which not. I don't see people in USA shoot each other massively despite very liberal arms market. I don't see it in Switzerland, I don't see it in Abhasia (they have some kind of Swiss army reserve system). Would I be butthurt if some foreign dealer sentenced to death? I think yes. He's only seller, just like those who sell alcohol, tobacco, cars etc. And if you got drunken and killed somebody by your car driven at 120 km/h - it's only your fault but not the guy's who produces such tasty alcohol and not the guy's who makes the cars which can drive with more than 40 km/h. If you became game-addict and lost your girlfriend - it's only your fault but not the game developer's.

If Bout gets out, go and apply for a job, you just passed his ethics test. Someone like you would be a valuable employee.

I'm just not racist and I don't think that all people are sillier than me.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Spooky Lynx

[celery 8]

If the premise is that supplying weapons to a party that will probably use them to kill people at some point is super wrong, why doesn't anyone demand the immediate closure and prosecution of companies that make and sell weapons and combat vehicles to militaries? When do we see HK and Mikoyan share the fate of Viktor Bout?

[Tonci87 163]

The difference is how the weapons are going to be used (Yeah I know its stupid) Somehow militarys are ok, but things get really criminal when dead civilians are involved.

[celery 8]

The difference is how the weapons are going to be used (Yeah I know its stupid) Somehow militarys are ok, but things get really criminal when dead civilians are involved.

Dead civilians have been involved in pretty much every conflict that USA and Russia have gotten into in the past 60 years, sometimes in truly unbelievable numbers. I'm just wondering about the logic in this whole evil gun salesman thing.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Yes. I think people have brains and they may decide which things to do and which not. I don't see people in USA shoot each other massively despite very liberal arms market. I don't see it in Switzerland, I don't see it in Abhasia (they have some kind of Swiss army reserve system). Would I be butthurt if some foreign dealer sentenced to death? I think yes. He's only seller, just like those who sell alcohol, tobacco, cars etc. And if you got drunken and killed somebody by your car driven at 120 km/h - it's only your fault but not the guy's who produces such tasty alcohol and not the guy's who makes the cars which can drive with more than 40 km/h. If you became game-addict and lost your girlfriend - it's only your fault but not the game developer's.

Looks like an ad for the NRA. I understand what's the basic purpose of a computer or a car. Could you remind me what's the purpose of a weapon ?

[icebreakr 3107]

Two things I remember from a US soldier Nathaniel Fick from his book One Bullet Away:

- they fired upon a civilian vehicle approaching their ambush point and killed everyone inside, no ID before shooting.

- infantry sat expressionless during a night near an Iraqi town getting shelled by 155mm HE (and probably WP) rounds. Then they would enter eventually :)

Things like that are descibed in almost every book by a US or UK soldier. And I've read almost all of them that they come out so far ;)

Now the question about that "terrorist/freedom fighter" topic. If you were a Iraqi citizen living in that town sieged I mentioned before - explosions are going off... roof just collapsed that killed your wife and a son. What would you call yourself after grabbing an AK47 from a closet?

If you would not have a weapon to defend your town, your country... would you buy it from a guy like Viktor or one of his "local dealers"?

And to make one more point about weapon sales... if weapons kill people, do spoons make people fat?

I "know" bunch of folks who have over 20,000$ of weapons in their homes or their "hideouts" - with all papers and stuff, but they didn't use one on a person (yet)... and the probably hope they won't have to.

Edited April 13, 2012 by IceBreakr

[walker 0]

Hi all

Strange I thought your were supposed to search before posting new topics...

As far as I am aware duplicate threads are frowned upon.

Original Thread on the subject, without the emotional title this one has

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?110087-Viktor-Bout-extradited-to-the-US

The thread includes a lot more detail and if I may say less emotion that this thread.

The major thing about Viktor Bout is that he worked for both the US and Russia and others besides, I saw his planes at a certain location in the UK forinstance, and infact he was delivering arms for the last US administration as detailed in the first post of the original thread; as well as being linked to the current Russian administration. Half the reason he was brought to the US was to gag him and stop him from talking to the press about US involvement in illegaly selling Arms.

..In 2003 Viktor Bout was working for Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld's company KBR delivering weapons to Iraq suposedly for the Police that would then mysteriously disappear from KBR run airport. 10,000 AKs went walkies from the airport; days afterwards came a surge in attacks on US troops by insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan...

Ibid

It certainly kept the Iraq war going for KBR and the war Profiteers that was the danger President Eisenhower warned America of in his farewell address

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ike-was-right-all-along-the-danger-of-the-militaryindustrial-complex-2186133.html

So it was hundreds probably thousands of American and Alied Servicmen's lives that Viktor Bout's business cost as well as hundreds of thousands of African civilians and masses of other post colonial wars round the world.

However, anyone who thinks he was only a Russian stooge has not looked deeply in to the case. I suggest that you read all the information in that thread as it includes detailed links and evidense.

To the modies I suggest the this thread is merged into the original thread.

Kind Regards walker

Edited April 13, 2012 by walker

[*LK1* 10]

It's possible Viktor will never be free. The US is only the first in the list of countries that wanted this notorious UN sanctions buster brought to justice. After he has served his sentence he will probably be extradited elsewhere for another one as has occurred with other international criminals.

no. theres no other countries who requiring his ass at the moment.

I am surprised at the reaction of the Russian Governement, is this a de facto admission that his criminality was officially sponsored?

i wouldnt wait for that implicit admission i mean, is obvious. i guess you cant grab and sell tons of rifles, tanks, jets( yes he sold jets not just rifles) without the approval by the kremlin.

the "mafioso" message sent by the us government is pretty much clear: we can while you cannot. they sold stingers and the talebans during the soviet invasion; im waiting to see some us president or at least some little fish from CIA going in jail for that. they have destabilized the entire south america by financing and arming nationalists/fascists regimes and noone is in jail for that. usually his hard to like people like Viktor Boult so i dont expect a lot of solidarity for him, im just pointing out how hypocrite his that sentence.

---------- Post added at 06:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:44 PM ----------

skip

sorry i didnt found another thread.

I would just like to remind you that Viktor is already replaced by a new "merchant of death" on the market.

sure, show must go on.

Edited April 13, 2012 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[froggyluv 2130]

So does all of this "its not the weapon its the person" apply to all weapons? Nuclear devices as well? They are after all a valuable negotiatiang tool. Should I, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Iran be able to own these tools without any responsiblity to the provider?

I do believe in the right to bear arms -within reason and regulation.

[*LK1* 10]

Looks like an ad for the NRA. I understand what's the basic purpose of a computer or a car. Could you remind me what's the purpose of a weapon ?

defending countries or robbing people, or invading countries. should Bout makes a sort of test at his clients to understand their purposes before he sell weapons?

---------- Post added at 07:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 PM ----------

So does all of this "its not the weapon its the person" apply to all weapons? Nuclear devices as well? They are after all a valuable negotiatiang tool. Should I, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Iran be able to own these tools without any responsiblity to the provider?

I do believe in the right to bear arms -within reason and regulation.

personally i guess we are going a bit to far. i repeat the question: does a weapon dealer should make a sort of test to his clients before selling weapons? just to understand their purposes? if the answer is yes, lets go the next obvious consideration: and if the client cheatt on you?

---------- Post added at 07:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:01 PM ----------

Thats true, im sure there is a queuing system for it.

Unless ledendkiller can respond, I read it purely to highlight the double-standards and using this as the example, I personally didn't read it that he must think hes ok & should be actually be free as if he did nothing wrong none the less. I thought it was more sarcasm / Irony.

And dont bother with the "against us" thing, that's just not worth typing, lets face it anyone standing on the global moral high ground can get shot down in flames in moments looking at history and not so far back, its not just as simple as anything to hate America for forum points.

+

Thats a good point to be mindful of too, you can see it as acting against USA, but you can also see it as finger pointing and diversion scape goating, taking the fall, used and forgotten etc, much as I bet no one will agree with that. Thats a general point mind you.

*

i defend the freedom of the people thats why i would personally defend the freedom of Boult. especially because he did the same thing that many westerns companies, presidents has done during these years. so why this guy should been in jail and the good western guys who did the same are free. thats the most ridicolous thing, not calling freedom for Boult.

Edited April 16, 2012 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[st_dux 26]

So does all of this "its not the weapon its the person" apply to all weapons? Nuclear devices as well? They are after all a valuable negotiatiang tool. Should I, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Iran be able to own these tools without any responsiblity to the provider?

I do believe in the right to bear arms -within reason and regulation.

You are talking about two different things here. Should nuclear weapons be regulated/controlled? Yes, of course. This doesn't make someone who sold a weapon ethically responsible for what his customer decides to do with that weapon, though.

[froggyluv 2130]

So Russia selling Iran nukes who then level Israel would be in breach of regulation but totally ethical. Pakistan the same to the Taliban... Well, at least they werent immoral.

My post was more in sarcastic reference to those who believe all weapons are just tools and should not be controlled as they re as benign as cars and computers.

Edited April 13, 2012 by froggyluv

[fraczek 4]

Not really wanting to get into this discussion. But while it is nowadays so fashionable to bash "West", when you are mentioning US please also remember the other - USSR and RF now. Or do you really think they haven't been giving guns, GRADs and whatever practically for FREE to whoever if they felt it was in their interest as well? Including some pretty scum dictators and civil wars? And that they aren't still doing it? Where do you think Assad's GRADs come from?

Also, most of you are using an argument that is nonsensical - if something is wrong but the big guy does it and gets away with it (US+USSR during the cold war), does it mean that it is any less wrong if the smaller guy does it too? Nope.

My two cents and that's all. I am outta here :)

[PELHAM 10]

i defend the freedom of the people thats why i would personally defend the freedom of Boult. especially because he did the same thing that many westerns companies, presidents has done during these years. so why this guy should been in jail and the good western guys who did the same are free.

thats the most ridicolous thing, not calling freedom for Boult.

In many cases, NOT all, they were providing people with a means to defend themselves because China, USSR, Cuba, or NK had already armed the mob the other side of the hill/fence/border? The thorny issue that sticks out as the exception is the Contra Rebel fiasco and Col. Ollie North. Viktor sold to anyone, even both sides in the same conflict, there was no motive apart from personal wealth.

Comparing Viktor to Western Governments doesn't really work on any level. Although there has been some historical corruption there is always oversight and legal control to some extent. This guy just did whatever he liked. And why are you saying specifically that certain people in western governments should go to jail when this is a world wide problem? The most blatent examples of unethical arms sales come from elsewhere as I have comprehensively demonstrated in this thread.

Edited April 13, 2012 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

i defend the freedom of the people thats why i would personally defend the freedom of Boult. especially because he did the same thing that many westerns companies, presidents has done during these years. so why this guy should been in jail and the good western guys who did the same are free.

thats the most ridicolous thing, not calling freedom for Boult.

But in the realms of arms dealing (not just some subject where defending freedom is speech or something lesser) with the inevitable end and use, should it be a different way to look at this.

So far its "He should be free because others who do the same are still free" ... shouldn't it be "He goes to jail, so now lets expose those who need to go with him who did worse or worked above him" ?

BTW im all for highlighting the double standard as it sticks out a mile with a mass Irony stick, but I think throwing defence of freedom in the mix for arms dealing isn't in the same ballpark as hackers or free speech or whistle-blowing, maybe some balance to it.

I agree with you, but I dont agree he should be free, he should be tried for what is needed, but it shouldn't end at him.

Edited April 13, 2012 by mrcash2009

[maturin 12]

The U.S. drowns a kitten, and Russia complains. Not about drowning kittens, oh no. Instead they demand the right to drown their own kittens and loudly announce the procurement of dead cats. Typical.

Pretty sad when your inferiority complex involves aping all the vices of your self-declared enemies, and coveting their double standards. Take some notes from China, who actually competes with the U.S., rather than playing the role of the juvenile delinquent's little brother, whining how he can vandalize park benches just as well.

Виктор Бут к черту. And Oliver North too.

[rangerpl 13]

Let's release an arms dealer back into the world just because other arms dealers are free.

Let's also release all the child killers because Casey Anthony didn't get convicted.

Yep... solid logic you got there, LeGeNDK1LLER.

[celery 8]

If the premise is that supplying weapons to a party that will probably use them to kill people at some point is super wrong, why doesn't anyone demand the immediate closure and prosecution of companies that make and sell weapons and combat vehicles to militaries? When do we see HK and Mikoyan share the fate of Viktor Bout?

Dead civilians have been involved in pretty much every conflict that USA and Russia have gotten into in the past 60 years, sometimes in truly unbelievable numbers. I'm just wondering about the logic in this whole evil gun salesman thing.

Anyone care to explain this to me? :)

[kireta21 13]

So... should we disarm police as well? Or maybe we should disband our armies?

[/sarcasm]

Difference is same as between legally owned gun bought in store and gun bought on black market. Both can be used to commit a crime, and both can be used in legal self-defence. So, by your logic, there's no difference and selling guns from under shelf to anyone paying should be perfectly legal, amarite?

Edited April 14, 2012 by boota

[celery 8]

So... should we disarm police as well? Or maybe we should disband our armies?

[/sarcasm]

Difference is same as between legally owned gun bought in store and gun bought on black market. Both can be used to commit a crime, and both can be used in legal self-defence. So, by your logic, there's no difference and selling guns from under shelf to anyone paying should be perfectly legal, amarite?

I don't much care for vague analogies right now as I have not yet established my own standing in this and I just want to know the logic that people use in this thought process. Manufacturers and exporters sell weapons and combat vehicles to organized parties that are known to use them on non-combatants by the thousands, and historically, millions. Those parties happen to be national militaries. Why are those suppliers different from someone who supplies organized parties with weapons on a smaller scale?

Edited April 14, 2012 by Celery

[kireta21 13]

Likeness of committing atrocities. If you take a look at modern wars, you'll see freedom fighters killing many times more civilians than occupying forces, even though it's the latter who often use overkill firepower. That's result of having standing armies to obey ROE. Especially nowadays, when PR is just as important and armored divisions, militaries try to avoid civilians casualties when possible.

Second is, countries are responsible for actions of their armies. If it's country's army that performes ethnic cleansing/genocide it will often result in sanctions/embargo for entire country. While weapon embargo itself won't stop them from killing, it will hurt their combat ability, and is possibly dangerous to the state. That is, unless someone ignores embargo and sells them weapons anyway.

Big players (or small players with big friends) can do more. That's reality. But does it mean UN shouldn't intervene at all because it can't held everyone responsible?

[PELHAM 10]

I don't much care for vague analogies right now as I have not yet established my own standing in this and I just want to know the logic that people use in this thought process. Manufacturers and exporters sell weapons and combat vehicles to organized parties that are known to use them on non-combatants by the thousands, and historically, millions. Those parties happen to be national militaries. Why are those suppliers different from someone who supplies organized parties with weapons on a smaller scale?

That is what happens in places like Russia. In the west arms sales are strictly controlled and speaking for the UK , we are very choosy who we sell to. Eg if you look at this website:

Current arms embargoes and other restrictions

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk

there are Arms embargoes, Trade Control Restrictions and Military End-Use Controls on the following:

Armenia and Azerbaijan Burma Democratic Republic of Congo Democratic People's Republic of Korea Eritrea Guinea Iran Iraq Ivory Coast Lebanon Liberia Libya Sierra Leone Somalia South Sudan Sudan Syria Zimbabwe Afghanistan Argentina Burundi Macao Special Administrative Region Rwanda Tanzania Uganda

There is a longer list of controls on countries (IDA) where "arms exports might seriously hamper its economic or sustainable development". The UK government assess licence applications based on many criteria. Much of the law relating to this is EU wide:

The EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/08675r2en8.pdf

Consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/eco/docs/consolidated-criteria.doc

I called this thread that is trying to compare Viktor Bout to Western countries "the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on these forums" for very good justifiable reasons. Bout was very successful because he sold to everyone the West wouldn't, with the backing of his government, who even now protest at his arrest and trial. Anyone trying to spread this guff is completely misinformed and is looking in the wrong direction - do a 180!

Lets have a close look at the links between Russia and Syria (RE the above list), as it's in the news at the moment. Russia became Syria's biggest arms supplier in 2006 and has written off $9.6Billion of Syrian debt.Those wondering why Russia continues to support Assad and show such generocity, while ignoring the mass murder of ordinary people across the country need look no further than this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartus#Russian_naval_base

Since 2009, Russia has been renovating the Syrian Tartus naval base and dredging the port to allow access for its larger naval vessels. It wants the base as a permanent residence for it's navy. That's what a Russian version of an ethical arms supply policy looks like.

Edited April 14, 2012 by PELHAM

[maturin 12]

I don't much care for vague analogies right now as I have not yet established my own standing in this and I just want to know the logic that people use in this thought process. Manufacturers and exporters sell weapons and combat vehicles to organized parties that are known to use them on non-combatants by the thousands, and historically, millions. Those parties happen to be national militaries. Why are those suppliers different from someone who supplies organized parties with weapons on a smaller scale?

Morally, sometimes not much. Legally, every country is entitled to have a military, and other countries are entitled to sell them arms.

Armies are going to exist whether they are supplied with slightly better hardware or not, and legitimate arms sales tend to take place during peacetime, not in the midst of atrocities. The U.S. was no better than Viktor Bout when it gave all that military aid to South Africa, but there are concrete reasons for that. When countries misuse their arms, a clearer causal link between hardware and bloodshed develops, and there tends to be some sort of embargo. And that's the sort of time when Viktor Bout or secret service agencies would step in.

There's a presumption against selling to non-state actors because the existence of these groups tends to require a conflict. Otherwise they would BE a national army. And since they tend to be ill-supplied, selling them hardware provides them with the means to carry out violence. Whereas a national military could commit genocide with WWI surplus if it wanted to, by dint of manpower, resources, organization and legitimacy.

[PELHAM 10]

The U.S. was no better than Viktor Bout when it gave all that military aid to South Africa, but there are concrete reasons for that.

Could you refresh our memories about that one? Most of us well versed in history and current affairs generally understand that the US had an arms embargo on SA from 1964 till the end of apartheid?

[GRS 10]

Yes I would blame the US in general not just the US Govt. The 2nd amendment did not forsee the machine guns and cannons which people have in their homes. It was made during the time of flintlocks. Legally I don't think we could curb the average US citizens right to bear arms, but do they really need an AK-47, M-16 or 50Cal M2?

Yes. 2A did not forsee the government having those weapons either, and considering it exists to allow the people to fend for themselves if need be, I'm still waiting for my tank.