aleksadragutin

You can't know if that's what they wanted, or even the extent of their knowledge, or even who did it, so your info's a guess? ---------- Post added at 19:55 ---------- Previous post was at 19:53 ---------- There's no doubt that the reason for Ukraine not joining EU and NATO any time soon is the war.

You can't say that they wanted to down the plane knowing it is civilian. You simply can't make that verdict.

The knowing part has a lot to do with guilt in many if not every justice system.

Yes, but in the drone case the operators would be aware that they are bombing a school. In the MH17 case they weren't aware that the target was civilian.

Yes it does, in almost every law.

What if those responsible were not aware that they shot down a civilian liner (like they probably weren't)?

No one said that that is literally true.

Maybe the plane was between the liner and the AA, at say 5000m.

Basically, if you walk trough a marked minefield and get blown to bits, it's most likely your fault. Plus the Malaysian airlines have been pretty lose with their planes recently, so I blame them.

Spain, no. Belgium and USA yes.

This was compiled after the crisis began, that makes it retro active. But as I said, government wishes don't always coalign with those of its people.

Those are retroactive polls, which are not credible. And then again the government often doesn't care about public opinion or orientation (I talked what the situation is like here, where officials promise before elections, but after they just stick with the previous regimes politics).

Really don't see how those 2 are in any way connected. One is a lye made by US intelligence, and the other one is standard protocol.

The NATO deal would have been certain. There's also the real tendencies of Ethnic Russians, and you need to keep in mind that world map today is in no way historical, it was made artificially in the '90s. There's much more to it then purely bullying neighbours.

As I seem to remember it was caused by protests in Kiev which got real violent real fast, and all because Yanukovich didn't sign some document concerning the EU. A deal with EU would have lead to NATO, and the reason why Russia doesn't want NATO on it's doorstep is more than obvious. The same logic behind Georgia.

That is not the course of Putins politics. It's first objective is to secure the borders. Has everyone forgot how this started in the first place?

You're wrong there. Kosovo has been Serbian since medieval times. After the Ottoman conquest, the whole Serbia was under Ottoman rule. In times of the Balkan wars Kosovo was inhabited by Serbian majority. After WW2 Albanians started coming to Kosovo. Finally in '98 the UCK was created to drive out remaining Serb population. Albania didn't lose anything, it gained. Albanians only lived in the south of modern day Albania and they started to spread because they were favored by Ottoman occupying forces.

Does Kosovar exist as nationality?

That started recently because it was just recently that their democratically elect representative was illegally overthrown. I would be pissed off too if something like that was done to my representative.

I think the Russians in Crimea were pretty self-determined.

On the contrary. This is directly linked to Ukraine conflict. The resolution 1244 itself was about sending peacekeepers (which was not illegal), however in 2007 Kosovo declared independence and was backed by those who bombed Serbia 8 years earlier. This was presented as a legal act. This was the respect they showed for our sovereignty. NATO didn't care about freedom or oppression, it cared only about politics and itself. Russia exploited this by annexing Crimea, only when Russia tore off a part of "sovereign" Ukrainian territory, this was presented as an act of aggression and an illegal act, by those who did the same thing 7 years earlier. Some actions which suit NATO are OK, but similar ones that don't are not OK. The offtopic only started when someone tried to kidnap the topic by mentioning war crimes. Nothing can and shouldn't be used as an argument to justify this kind of hypocrisy.

What the fuck? Oh my good, saying this makes me realize how distorted your image of the war was. Serbia did not declare war on anybody, the YNA was sent in to stop rebellions. Serbia did not invade anything since the country at a time was SFRJ. Cro and Bosnia did destroy cities. Bosnian muslims regularly crossed the river and slaughtered civilians on the other side. Croatia expelled 400000+ Serbs in 2 operations. Serbia didn't conduct scorched earth either. Not sure about the UN. Organised civilian sniping on a large scale? Seriously? Do you even know what war looks like? If you're so sure in that then prove it please. Ridiculous. And yes Croatians and Bosnian muslims did also kill and torture civilians. This is why there is no good and evil side in a war, and this is why the questions I posed are still open.

Without going into argument again, I'm gonna pose 3 questions. Why didn't "US and friends" get sanctioned, why didn't Croatia and Bosnian muslims get bombed for what they did 5-8 years earlier, and why did NATO target civilian buildings vehicles and infrastructure and thus knowingly destroyed our infrastructure for years to come (scaring people into acting is a sign of terrorism)? The international law is a very selective thing. ---------- Post added at 13:30 ---------- Previous post was at 13:27 ---------- They are local enough, but then again someone who's researching it from someone elses photos is not.

My point exactly.

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.