Ukraine General

[mistyronin 1181]

The fact that more countries did it doesn't make it legal, just or right.

You know that laws are rules of coexistence that are written by groups of people. In the case of International Law, the UN is an important source.

So yes, the International interventions in Iraq, A-Stan and Libya were legal. And even more, Russia made them legal.

Everyone has its own definition of justice and rightness, so it obviously depend who judges it.

IMO the intervention in Iraq was unnecessary and created more trouble than it solved. I'm and was, deeply against it.

[oxmox 73]

Ox we were talking about the limited definition of Aleksa, he means only US, UK, France and Germany; not the Western Bloc.

And I've never seen it described as the West in the news ( only in Russian propaganda medias ). They talk about Western countries / culture, which means almost half of the World, not 4 countries.

Before I already commented:

I guess the term " the west" which is used very often in the news nowadays derives from the Western Bloc, but has a slightly different defnition now. Of course more countries than just 4 compromise this term and Aleksa is not right here. I dont even think that the mentioned russian medias talking about "the west" and defining it by only 4 countries. It highly likely has the same meaning like used in the international press and if you search for the term you get many examples.

---------- Post added at 08:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 PM ----------

Are you seriously comparing a single side action done for their own single benefit like the Russian military invasion of part of Ukraine, with a large group of countries that decided to took actions in different countries ( more than 30 in each of the different countries you mentioned )? That BTW didn't annex them for their own benefit.

Besides the consequences for the intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are numerous for all the countries that took part in those actions In Spain: 11M in Madrid, In UK: 7J inLondon, fall of a group number of Governments. Massive demonstrations, and a long etc.

And remember that Russia didn't oppose to those actions ( Iraq, A-Stan and Libya ), instead supported them. Check who voted against these resolutions ( no one! ):

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1386 ( A-Stan )

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 ( Iraq )

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 ( Libya )

In the first two Russia even voted in favor. So Russia is also direct responsible for the war in Iraq and A-Stan.

And Russian's actions in Ukraine were only supported by a few countries in the whole UN assembly.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262

In fact not even Russia's traditional allies like Serbia supported Putin's invasion. Check which countries supported Russia:

Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

The less democratic countries of the World are there, the ones where you would never send your children...

You have to look not only about votes, you have to look what the foreign policies says about the events. When it comes to the Iraq War in 2003, it is defined as an invasion against the Iraq violating international law.

They did pull back the UN resolution because it would have lead to votes against the war.

"In 2003, the governments of the US, Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the "eighteenth resolution" and others called the "second resolution." This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast 'no' votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it. On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War

During the Operation Desert Storm (Gulf War II 1990) there was no Russia and the SSSR was in signs of desintegration, the Sovjetunion did officialy end at the end of 1991.

By the way, there was heavy propaganda and besides the bluffed baby incubator incidents the US did claim the Iraq would mass a huge amount of troops on boarders, wheras later the Sovjetunion did deliver satellite images which showed the areas were empty...

Edited November 15, 2014 by oxmox

[Xalteva 10]

You realize how insulting your fairy tale may be for the family of the casualties ?

I defy you to give an explanation to that video. The plane was shot down in the sky, you should have seen a fireball coming down not just a random explosion in the middle of nowhere.

If i start facing you with more questions concerning the crash site, you will just escape the discussion :)

For example, here's a boing 777 engine image :

now compare it to the one on the crash site :

Debris have caught my attention since the first day, if you scroll up you will find my comment.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Xalteva

[oxmox 73]

My thoughts are that the hull is missing, thats why the size is different. Its just the turbine from inside.

[Xalteva 10]

Good point, but take a look to this :

It's smaller but not comparable, it doesn't look to be the same at all:

On some images (that i can't post here), some victims were completely naked (with untouched skin) which makes me question the way they got killed.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Xalteva

[surpher 1]

Debunked: Claim MH 17 wreckage engine fan is wrong size

Same 2S19 Msta spotted in Rostov-on-Don then in Novoazovs'k, Ukraine

Edited November 15, 2014 by surpher

[aleksadragutin 9]

Debunked: Claim MH 17 wreckage engine fan is wrong size

Same 2S19 Msta spotted in Rostov-on-Don then in Novoazovs'k, Ukraine

http://i.imgur.com/Yy5OE3kl.jpg

Very easy to fake in photoshop.

[Tonci87 163]

Good point, but take a look to this :

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/51/07/79/5107799acefbe9126ac52983de48914e.jpg

It's smaller but not comparable, it doesn't look to be the same at all:

http://static.euronews.com/articles/274514/606x340_274514.jpg?1405647423

On some images (that i can't post here), some victims were completely naked (with untouched skin) which makes me question the way they got killed.

Well you evidently don´t know how a turbine looks from the inside.....

[Xalteva 10]

Well you evidently don´t know how a turbine looks from the inside.....

Show me please then ...

On another side, has anyone reported any other debris outside the crashsite ???

[oxmox 73]

@MistyRonin

Adding this:

When it comes to the Afghanistan war in 2001, you have to concider that the decision fighting against Islamists came in useful for Russia and China:

1) Russia and their issues with Chechnya Muslims

2) China and their disputes with seccionists muslims in the west

A lot more nations were happy to join the coallition of the willing to justify their own activities against elements in their own countries.

i.e. Turkey, Algeria, Indonesia, ......

@Xalteva

https://www.metabunk.org/sk/20141012-082208-faw1f.jpg (256 kB)

Edited November 15, 2014 by oxmox

[Xalteva 10]

I think the boeing 777 uses a General Electric engine which was produced in 1995, one year before the engine in that link.

Anyway, so it's basically the same thing shown on the image i posted above , which is still bigger than in the crashsite.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Xalteva

[oxmox 73]

I think the boeing 777 uses a General Electric engine which was produced in 1995, one year before the engine in that link.

Anyway, so it's basically the same thing shown on the image i posted above , which is still bigger than in the crashsite.

Do you think turbines from other manufactures are that much different. What do you want to achieve with examining the remains of the airplane.

GE90 - General Electrics

or here

http://web.stanford.edu/~cantwell/AA283_Course_Material/GE90_Engine_Data.pdf

Edited November 15, 2014 by oxmox

[Xalteva 10]

But my point is that the size is still not comparable ... it is almost as high as a standing guy.

It all started with that amateur video showing the moment of the crash, where you can see just an explosion, i was wondering why you couldnt see anything falling from sky. That's why i decided to look into the crash site debris, the first thing that caught my attention was the body debris which looked so "clean" (i was told russian AA missiles throw small steel balls when they explode), then the passports and naked bodies ...

Well, i have to admit that i had also in mind the MH317 flight which disappeared mysteriously and maybe there is a link.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Xalteva

[oxmox 73]

You are into conspiracies, better stay with the facts which are available. You are wasting your time here.

There are two images on the page before which are showing the turbine part. On both images the size of the person has around the same hight like the part of the turbine. In photography an image can cause aswell optical illusions when it comes to size, but on both images the person is almost identical in the position to the turbine. Just use your fingers to measure it, the damaged part is bent and does not show the full height lying on the ground. Your second image which you did post shows not the correct size in comparison to the person since he is not in line with the position of the turbine part.

Look what you can do in photography, some extreme examples:

Edited November 15, 2014 by oxmox

[surpher 1]

Very easy to fake in photoshop.

In the videos? Ok go ahead and prove it, if its so easy.

@Xalteva

Source

Edited November 15, 2014 by surpher

[oxmox 73]

Thats why Iam also very sceptical with blogs/websites who are trying to research incidents just from watching videos, images and google earth.

For example Ukraine@war (ukraineatwar.blogspot.com) did "research" the School No63 incident where some children did die on a soccer field in Donetzk. The person of the Webpage did claim the source of the impact would be the east, just with his images and calculated angels.

This was taken over without review from the ukrainian media and even politicians and experts were claiming it. Later on his blog he did notice that it was wrong, but of course the press did not correct the assumptions. He (you dont know even who is behind the webpage) did not notice that the light of the sunset did reflect in the windows of the building. A total mess but it did fulfill its role for propaganda.

I did follow only this incident since the link was posted on this forum, cant say about his other contributions.

Another example is bellingcat.com who are investigating the MH17 incident, wheras they got a lot more interesting facts and you know who is behind the webpage, the whole research just by videos and images does not replace needed people locally. There are too many variables and additional important informations needed which nobody can only research by press reports, images and videos. Since there are $30 million dollar reward for solving this case of course they try their best.

This all reminds me on the 911 truther. At the end its rather manipulating than finding the truth.

Edited November 15, 2014 by oxmox

[Xalteva 10]

Thats why Iam very sceptical with blogs who are trying to research incidents just from watching videos, images and google earth.

For example Ukraine@war (ukraineatwar.blogspot.com) did "research" the School No63 incident where some children did die on a soccer field in Donetzk. The person of the Webpage did claim with his images and calculated angels the source of the impact would be the east. This was taken over without much proof from the ukrainian media and even politicians and experts were claiming it. Later on his blog he did notice that it was wrong, but of course the press did not correct the assumptions. He did not notice that the light of the sunset did reflect in the windows of the building. Total mess and useful for propganda.

Another example is bellingcat.com, wheras they got a lot more interesting facts, the whole research just by videos and images does not replace needed people locally. There are too many variables and additional important informations needed which nobody can only research by press reports, images and videos.

This all reminds me on the 911 truther. At the end its rather manipulating than finding the truth.

I am far from being some "inforwar" fan :) and those cheap conspiracies, but i don't just accept things that easily!

Facts that were provided in this MH17 story were just enough to make you believe the official story.

[aleksadragutin 9]

You know that laws are rules of coexistence that are written by groups of people. In the case of International Law, the UN is an important source.

So yes, the International interventions in Iraq, A-Stan and Libya were legal. And even more, Russia made them legal.

Everyone has its own definition of justice and rightness, so it obviously depend who judges it.

IMO the intervention in Iraq was unnecessary and created more trouble than it solved. I'm and was, deeply against it.

Yor first sentince explains why Russia shoudn't be sanctioned by "the west". Cause they made it clear that bombing for "peace" is international law.

[oxmox 73]

Xalteva, this is alright - no worry. You have to be sceptical otherwise you get only punked. Because we live in a world filled with lies and thats the big weakness of societies. If there would be legal action against a certain dimension of lies, which can lead to catastrophic events, our world would look probably a lot better.

Edited November 15, 2014 by oxmox

[Tonci87 163]

Xalteva, please take a look at the picture oxmox provided. The part of debris you were reffering to is one of the smaller fans inside the turbine.

The BUK missile exploded just above and in front of the aircraft. It killed the pilots immediately (they were the lucky ones on that plane if you ask me), however passengers further back in the aircraft may be completely unharmed by the missile itself.

[mistyronin 1181]

Yor first sentince explains why Russia shoudn't be sanctioned by "the west". Cause they made it clear that bombing for "peace" is international law.

I think you don't understand how laws work.

That in certain countries the death penalty is allowed, and therefore the state can kill someone legally, doesn't mean that is legal to kill any random man. A judge must order it following certain procedures, in International Law, the UN assembly and specifically the UN Securit Council are those who make it legal.

If Russia gets the approval of the majority of the countries in the UN Security Council and no vetoe vote from the 5 countries ( China, Russia, France, US and UK ) like the Iraq, A-Stan or Libya coalitions did, then it's legal.

Edited November 16, 2014 by MistyRonin
orthography

[beastcat 14]

NOS - Berging MH17-wrak begonnen

Edited November 16, 2014 by beastcat

[aleksadragutin 9]

I think you don't understand how laws work.

That in certain countries the death penalty is allowed, and therefore the state can kill someone legally, doesn't mean that is legal to kill any random man. A judge must order it following certain procedures, in International Law, the UN assembly and specifically the UN Securit Council are those who make it legal.

If Russia gets the approval of the majority of the countries in the UN Security Council and no vetoe vote from the 5 countries ( China, Russia, France, US and UK ) like the Iraq, A-Stan or Libya coalitions did, then it's legal.

Ok, let's draw a parallel between the resolution 1244 and annexation of Crimea. One was "legal" and the other one not. Why? In Kosovo you had terrorist militia come in from a foreign country (supplied by Albanian mafia), attacking villages with Serbian majority, so they would be forced to leave and thus create an Albanian majority. What would any civilized or non civilized country do in such an event. Send in the police of course. We got bombed for that and sanctioned for that and Kosovo was forcibly removed without any referendum. This was according to the "Law".

7 years later Russia pulls the same stunt with Crimea. Occupies it with soldiers from abroad. The difference is that they didn't terrorize locals, and they did organize a referendum. But this time around that is illegal.

That is the kind of hypocrisy I'm trying to expose. If a country supported the NATO aggression on my country as legal, then it is pure hypocrisy to sanction Russia.

[spooky lynx 73]

Yes it's hypocrisy but who cares? They do what is profitable and good for themselves and they have a power to do it. Rule of strong is still actual.

[aleksadragutin 9]

Yes it's hypocrisy but who cares? They do what is profitable and good for themselves and they have a power to do it. Rule of strong is still actual.

My point exactly.